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

What about this: What is the first thing to ever exist? Is it possible to for life to exist from something that's nonexistent, then by that then all things that seem to exist is really nonexistent, just nothing. But that first thing to ever exist, how possibly could it be created, it makes no sense, if this is true then would have been an infinite amount of creations. But the first thing to exist should not have been created but should have just existed without creation. Because an infinite number of creations would make no sense, then what is the beginning of all things that exist? Then that uncreated being must be God.

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?

Hello Kenethamy,

The sun is 'The Sun', no matter how one describes it. The description of its attributes is variable from observer to observer, I agree. And each of these descriptions promotes a myriad of variable truths.

But the fundamental factor remains - It is 'The Sun'.
Answer this question ; What is that big, bright, light-giving thing in the sky? ... The Sun.
Does this count as ONE truth?

Thank you, have a great everything, always

Mark...

Sure it counts as one truth. But certainly not as the only truth about the Sun. There are many different truths about the Sun. You may be confusing "one" with "only one", or "the only one". What do you think? But I agree, the Sun is the Sun. In fact that is a necessary truth about the Sun, since it is a necessary truth that everything is identical with itself. But that is not the only truth about something.

What about this: What is the first thing to ever exist? Is it possible to for life to exist from something that's nonexistent, then by that then all things that seem to exist is really nonexistent, just nothing. But that first thing to ever exist, how possibly could it be created, it makes no sense, if this is true then would have been an infinite amount of creations. But the first thing to exist should not have been created but should have just existed without creation. Because an infinite number of creations would make no sense, then what is the beginning of all things that exist? Then that uncreated being must be God.

Hello Kenethamy,

I agree. Tell me; Do you share my belief that NO two things can be wholly identical - In any realm of physicality?

Thank you and farewell.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 03:19 PM ----------

But that you agree so readily puzzles me, since you certainly did not agree before. What puzzles me is that what I wrote is so obviously true, that I cannot understand why you wrote what you did before you agreed with me. I mean is that I don't understand how you could have disagreed with me about something so obviously true as that just because it is true about something that it is identical with itself, that that truth is the only thing true of it.

If X is identical with Y, then there are not two things, there is just one thing (although it may appear there are two things). On the other hand, I see no a priori reason why, if here are two things, they cannot have the very same properties. Notice, I am assuming that by saying X and Y are identical, you are saying that every property of X's is a property of Y, and every property of Y is also a property of X. X and Y are identical if and only if X and Y have the same properties.

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?

Hello again Kenethamy,

I agree again.

If two objects are in two different locations, are they not in seperate locations?
Therefore - they are different, at least in their location. like subatomic particles, they may indeed share seemingly identical properties, patterns and functions, but, the fact remains, that in linear time, they must have originated in alternate time frames, no matter how miniscule. Two frames of time are seperate from one another. Is not one object obviously older than another, and thusly in an alternate state of absorbtion, expansion and depletion? I think so - don't you.



If X=(any value) then only that X = that value.

Two objects cannot locate themselves in one position, for they would then have the value of one object.

Thank you, you've an interesting mindset.

Mark...

Hello again Kenethamy,

I agree again.

If two objects are in two different locations, are they not in seperate locations?
Therefore - they are different, at least in their location. like subatomic particles, they may indeed share seemingly identical properties, patterns and functions, but, the fact remains, that in linear time, they must have originated in alternate time frames, no matter how miniscule. Two frames of time are seperate from one another. Is not one object obviously older than another, and thusly in an alternate state of absorbtion, expansion and depletion? I think so - don't you.



If X=(any value) then only that X = that value.

Two objects cannot locate themselves in one position, for they would then have the value of one object.

Thank you, you've an interesting mindset.

Mark...

A at the age of 2, and A at the age of 30 are one and the same person. For A at age 2 has the property of being A at age 30, and A, at age 30 has the property of being A at the age of 2. Therefore, A, at age 30, and A, at age 2, have exactly the same properties indexed as to time. As they must have since they are one and the same person.

It is not obviously false. What is obvious. Is that you did not carefully read my post.

I said "in many cases", not all cases. I foresaw that condition, and chose my words carefully.

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 10:45 PM ----------



That's a great post I think.

How might you distinguish between two identical objects that exist in eternity? Where location, and time are a bit more abstract.

How can a finite mind think infinitely.

A at the age of 2, and A at the age of 30 are one and the same person. For A at age 2 has the property of being A at age 30, and A, at age 30 has the property of being A at the age of 2. Therefore, A, at age 30, and A, at age 2, have exactly the same properties indexed as to time. As they must have since they are one and the same person.

How can a finite mind think infinitely.

You can't say something has a property, if that property doesnt exist yet, or doesnt exist anymore. The thing you are referring to as a property. Isnt a property anyways.

I'm still trying to conceive as to how time might exist eternally.

Hello Neil,
Have you considered forming a circle with the ends of the line.

Have you thought of how a car battery works - One end of the cycle (The head) forever chasing its own tail - The tail forever fleeing from its pursuer (The head). Neither can ever connect, for the result is to cease to exist.

Thank you again Neil.

Mark...

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.

I've argued that man is time. But not physics time. Or rather physics time is just one way abstraction in a family of related abstractions. Is time movement? I don't think that movement is a primary definition of time. Wihtout memory or desire, past and future experienced "subjectively",there is no "time," which is a human abstraction. When we are absorbed in a great moment, we don't think in terms of time. We are "present" but we don't need to think "I am present." Or if we are daydreaming about the future, this is an example of human time that is not physics time.

I find it questionable that we tend to talk of time only in spatial and numerical terms, neglecting the element of memory, desire, language. It may be that physical science advances by ignoring the observer. F =ma says nothing explicitly about the species that uses it. Where is the user in all this? Do we forget that change is also an abstraction? The intelligible structure of the world is made of language as much as anything.

Science is great, but its implicit metaphysics is not the end of philosophy, IMO.