God, Eternity, and Existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

JPhil
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:21 am
@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


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.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:39 am
@JPhil,
JPhil;160331 wrote:
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.


If you are asking whether there could be life without a cause, I would say that it was unlikely. Especially since scientists are getting closer to synthesizing life. However, we already know that there are some events that do not have causes (only they are micro-events). Your question, if life has no cause, then how could it possibly been created is easily answered. If it had no cause, then it was not created, since if it was created, then it would have a cause. You seem to be assuming, however, that the only kind of cause that life could have would be that life was created. But why do you assume that? Many things have had causes, but were not created. For instance, the existence of stalagmites and stalagtites in caves had causes, but they were not created. They were caused by a natural process. So the cause of life need not be creation. The cause might be a natural process. In fact, all our evidence points to that.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160300 wrote:
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...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:47 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;160351 wrote:
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.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:06 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160354 wrote:
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.


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 ----------

JPhil;160331 wrote:
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 jPhil,

'Nothing' is impossible. This universal timeline is relative only to that which observes it, from within. It exists within an external timeline, itself... within an external timeline, and so on. To restrict one's mindset to linearism is to forsake the boundlessness of existence.

Something cannot arise from nothing - Substance begets substance.

Try this...

I'm searching for 'Nothing'. The scientist sighed.
In order to prove 'It' exists.
And 'What' have you found, in your search? I replied.
"NOTHING!".
And still he persists.

Thank you and farewell.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:51 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;160361 wrote:
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.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:34 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160376 wrote:
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.



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...
 
JPhil
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 10:38 am
@mark noble,
Hello jPhil,

'Nothing' is impossible. This universal timeline is relative only to that which observes it, from within. It exists within an external timeline, itself... within an external timeline, and so on. To restrict one's mindset to linearism is to forsake the boundlessness of existence.

Something cannot arise from nothing - Substance begets substance.

Try this...

I'm searching for 'Nothing'. The scientist sighed.
In order to prove 'It' exists.
And 'What' have you found, in your search? I replied.
"NOTHING!".
And still he persists.

Thank you and farewell.

Mark...[/QUOTE]

Boundlessness of existence, what do you mean by that? So time can be circular in what way, how can we came back to the past?
 
Neil D
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:22 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160300 wrote:
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?


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 ----------

mark noble;160433 wrote:
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...


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.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:53 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;160433 wrote:
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.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160724 wrote:
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.



Hello kenethamy,

so you're saying that one object (your child) remains identically one object through all of its life?
I'll get back to you on that, but I certainly didn't have a moustache when I was 2.

This has nothing to do with what I asked you though. What I asked was - Can 2 DIFFERENT objects be identical?
ARE ALL OBJECTS UNIQUE in your mind's-eye?

Thank you Kenethamy and I cherish your opinions.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-06-2010 at 02:50 PM ----------

Neil;160679 wrote:
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.



Hello Neil,

I cannot answer that, on the basis that - I cannot relate to the fact that TWO objects can be identical, in any realm of physicality.
To accept this would conflict with every avenue of what I perceive to be the fundamental truth of everything.
I have no doubt whatsoever of what IS, how it IS and why it IS, as you will discover over time.
Whether or not anyone else accepts these truths is not my concern.
But all are welcome to listen.

Thank you Neil, I hope to confer with you again.

Mark...
 
mark gamson
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:50 am
@Neil D,
How can a finite mind think infinitely.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 08:06 am
@mark gamson,
mark gamson;160795 wrote:
How can a finite mind think infinitely.


Hello Northern idiot,

How can an empty vessel be filled?

Mark...
 
Neil D
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 08:31 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;160724 wrote:
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.


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.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 09:03 pm
@mark gamson,
mark gamson;160795 wrote:

How can a finite mind think infinitely.

Do you mean think infinitely, or conceive of infinity?

The answer to the former is that it would have to exist infinitely.

When i conceive of spacial infinity. I can start by conceiving a vertical line, infinite in both directions. Then i can take that line and stretch it infinitely horizontally. Now I have an infinite 2D wall. I stretch the wall forwards and backwards infinitely for breadth. Now I have 3d spacial infinity. Its crude but it works for me.

I believe infinite linear time is only possible if there is a starting point. But i dont think time exists this way. Finite linear time makes the most sense to me.

I'm still trying to conceive as to how time might exist eternally.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 09:30 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;160810 wrote:
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.


The very same person who when two years old had the property of not having a mustache, but of having a mustache when he became 30, is the very same person who at the age of 30 had the property of not having a mustache when he was 2. In other words, the two year old, and the thirty year old, have the very same properties, only indexed to time. Of course a two year old can have the property of having a mustache when he is thirty. Why not? In fact, the two year old does. Properties can be very complicated things.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 08:13 am
@Neil D,
Neil;161088 wrote:

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...
 
Neil D
 
Reply Mon 10 May, 2010 03:57 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;161234 wrote:
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...


Yeah, I've thought about circular time. It reminds me of what God supposedly said: "I am Alpha and Omega. The beginning AND the end". Which is like you said. Taking a finite line, and meeting the ends. Forming a circle, which has no beginning nor end. Giving it something in common with eternity.

I'm trying to conceive of the existence of this so-called eternal circle of time. Its interesting to ponder occasionally.

Thanks for your comments Mark.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 06:28 pm
@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.


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.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sat 15 May, 2010 07:42 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;164767 wrote:
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.


It does seem to make it a bit confusing when there appear to be different forms of time that all go by the same name. I guess the most popular being physical spacetime. It seems "perceived time" is different then spacetime, and eternal time is also different.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 08:00:38