God, Eternity, and Existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Neil D
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 07:39 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;165412 wrote:

My point, Ken, is There are no good or evil acts, only opinion makes it so.

I value all life Ken, and respect the differences therein.

Thank you Ken, and expand vastly (Not anatomically though).

Mark...


I think about this from time to time. I wont disagree that good and evil is only a matter of opinion, but I would apply them to opposite ends of a spectrum. This is what makes creation dynamic. Good, Evil, and all the subtle differences in between. Of course this is only one example...there are numerous other spectrums: Moral, emotional..etc. Its my way of looking at it anyways.

When I witness something that in my opinion is evil. I have to understand that it is only a small part of a bigger picture that i dont fully comprehend. I almost feel that everything in creation is required, and in order for it to function properly. It couldnt be any other way.

If God does exist, then i would see it as being either good and evil, or neither.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 04:33 pm
@Neil D,
Neil,

We think of time as lineal, and have it moving forward and backwards, or even in a circular manner.

But what it time radiated in multiple directions, all at the same time from a center...and simultaneously. What there were untold centers all radiating in such a way, also simultaneously. What if what you call God, and I prefer to call Awareness, was in fact every center at the same time, and thus the word omnipresent?

Just a thought.

S9
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 05:55 pm
@Neil D,
mark noble;165412 wrote:
My point, Ken, is There are no good or evil acts, only opinion makes it so.


You're on a slippery slope here. It is true that the jihadis believe that Western civilization is evil and should be destroyed, and even though I can see why they think that, nothing makes it right. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but nothing makes the planting of bombs and the dreadful suffering they cause, right.

I have been reading a few of your posts. I can't see where you're coming from, except that you seem eager to please everyone. Would that be a fair comment, or am I misreading you?
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:39 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;165897 wrote:
You're on a slippery slope here. It is true that the jihadis believe that Western civilization is evil and should be destroyed, and even though I can see why they think that, nothing makes it right. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but nothing makes the planting of bombs and the dreadful suffering they cause, right.?
Anyone who thinks that the intentional maiming, tortuing and killing of a child is not evil and is just a matter of opinion, has defintiely lost their way. The basis of ethics is not pure reason, the basis of ethics is compassion and empathy. These abstract arguments about good and evil based purely on reason and which support absolute moral relativism or moral nihilism illustrate the fact that science and reason alone are not sufficient for a meaningful notion of ethics.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 06:58 pm
@prothero,
prothero;165909 wrote:
Anyone who thinks that the intentional maiming, tortuing and killing of a child is not evil and is just a matter of opinion, has defintiely lost their way. The basis of ethics is not pure reason, the basis of ethics is compassion and empathy. These abstract arguments about good and evil based purely on reason and which support absolute moral relativism or moral nihilism illustrate the fact that science and reason alone are not sufficient for a meaningful notion of ethics.



Maybe I am wrong but I would think that Jeeprs would agree with you. I hope that he would correct me if I am wrong.Smile
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:06 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;165910 wrote:
Maybe I am wrong but I would think that Jeeprs would agree with you. I hope that he would correct me if I am wrong.Smile
I am pretty sure he would, I am just objecting the same premise he is objecting to.
and while I am at it:
Without some notion of the eternal, of the Form of the good, of a higher realm wherein transcendent rights reside or arise from, it is precisely moral relativism and moral nihilism that reason and science alone arrive at.
You lose more than just silly notions of revealed religion and supernatural intervention when you dispense with "god" you lose transcendent eternal values also.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 07:39 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;165882 wrote:
Neil,

We think of time as lineal, and have it moving forward and backwards, or even in a circular manner.

But what it time radiated in multiple directions, all at the same time from a center...and simultaneously. What there were untold centers all radiating in such a way, also simultaneously. What if what you call God, and I prefer to call Awareness, was in fact every center at the same time, and thus the word omnipresent?

Just a thought.

S9


Thanks for the post,

Time radiating is an interesting way to put it.

I'm beginning to think time has always existed. And the Big Bang is just the beginning of a linear measurement of time, within an eternity of time. Which is to say the linear measurement from beginning to present is just the age of the universe and nothing else.

The medium that the universe is expanding into is infinite space. With infinity comes eternity. The former is space, the latter time.

Time must exist wherever space does, so with space being infinite, does this mean time would be infinite(existing everywhere), AND eternal(existing forever)?

Of course not because that would be too easy.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 09:41 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;165897 wrote:
You're on a slippery slope here. It is true that the jihadis believe that Western civilization is evil and should be destroyed, and even though I can see why they think that, nothing makes it right. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but nothing makes the planting of bombs and the dreadful suffering they cause, right.

I have been reading a few of your posts. I can't see where you're coming from, except that you seem eager to please everyone. Would that be a fair comment, or am I misreading you?


Hi Jeeprs,

I churn at the thought of the atrocities of the sick and the insane, even the frame (on a wildlife programme) where the lioness takes down the antelope, is of no appeal to me. But, I do understand that there are always TWO ends to a spectrum, two equally opposing ends, at that. Let the observer label them to their own dimensions. I don't agree with any acts of violence, by the way.

I am eager to please no-one and everyone, as perceived. I am polite and pleasant by nature, so I'm told, and am grateful to anyone, anywhere, who takes the time to type one word of response in reply to me. I have no alterior motives. I simply enjoy the views and opinions of the people herein, and the chance to participate in the areas I find interesting and fulfilling.

Thank you Jeeprs, and have a slendid day, sir.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 04:52 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;165882 wrote:
Neil,

We think of time as lineal, and have it moving forward and backwards, or even in a circular manner.

But what it time radiated in multiple directions, all at the same time from a center...and simultaneously. What there were untold centers all radiating in such a way, also simultaneously. What if what you call God, and I prefer to call Awareness, was in fact every center at the same time, and thus the word omnipresent?

Just a thought.

S9


Hi Subjectivety
That's more than just a thought. You're barking up my tree now.
Make this a fractilian process. Understand the periodic table's contents as one particle in alternate states of decay = M-theory, realise that this universe is only a reflection of the subatomic, and thusly subatomic itself - Understand that everything has an interior and exterior dimension. - Then get back to me. I'll elaborate further.

Thank you, and voyage brilliantly, sir.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 04:57 PM ----------

Neil;165923 wrote:
Thanks for the post,

Time radiating is an interesting way to put it.

I'm beginning to think time has always existed. And the Big Bang is just the beginning of a linear measurement of time, within an eternity of time. Which is to say the linear measurement from beginning to present is just the age of the universe and nothing else.

The medium that the universe is expanding into is infinite space. With infinity comes eternity. The former is space, the latter time.

Time must exist wherever space does, so with space being infinite, does this mean time would be infinite(existing everywhere), AND eternal(existing forever)?

Of course not because that would be too easy.


Hi Neil,

Too easy, indeed! But spot on!!!
Why is the blindingly obvious so obviously overlooked?

You and Subjectivity - I commend you!

Well done, sirs.

Mark...
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 10:07 am
@Neil D,
Neil,

Yes, time radiating is still linear but with very many lines all at once, perhaps a little bit like our sun.

Perhaps time has always existed, or time is a little like the Hindu “Day and Night of Brahman”…and pulses.

Man occupies such a small place in time, it may be a little like a fruit fly thinking about decades. But, this mystery of eternity and infinity certainly does fascinate us, never the less. Just maybe reaching in this way towards the mystery IS man’s excellence. : ^ )

What if the Big Bang is only about material existence?

What if there is no expansion, not really, and it is our mind that only sees our travel into understanding what is Constantly Present as a kind of expansion?

Some say time and space are simply two sides of one coin, “Buddhist Co-dependent Arising.” Or "you can’t have one without the other." What is space anyway without motion? What is motion without time? Don't they explain each other?

I don’t think Eternity in a long, long time…it is what some call, “Isness,” or all at once.

Finitude swims in Eternity, superimposed.

Infinity, I believe, can be measured or they certainly make an attempt at measuring it mathematically…so it is linear.

But, I think I am over my head here. I'm lucky to even balance my check book, when it comes to math.
; ^ )

Respectfully,
S9

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 02:02 PM ----------

Mark,

I wish you would elaborate on what you said here to me a little bit more. But do take it in baby steps, please, because it sounds quite interesting.

I think you are indicating that finitude, and maybe even infinity is a process, or a verb constantly becoming, and I could easily agree with this.

Where I believe we might part ways, if I understand you correctly, is in define the tiny world of sub-atomic, and ever smaller, as being more important than the larger world that supposedly builds up from it.

I think the concept of large and small only shows up when the human mind begins to separate things/processes arbitrarily and name them in order to keep them separated.

I question the whole concept of separation. So yes, superimposed, but not necessarily separate. Does that make sense? This may sound a little bit Taoist if we do not also consider Eternity, itself, as not being a process and maybe even transcendent of any process altogether.

In other words Eternity (Being) may be the base upon which process (finitude) is allowed to dance its little dance, and continually become, but more holographically than any actual progressive succession.

I am open to learning of your ideas in this, as I am certainly not a scientist, or a math whiz kid, just a mere metaphysician. ; ^ )

Even if I went off and read for 100 years, I would still not be ready to join you equally from your angle of perspective on this issue, but we might enjoy comparing our two viewpoints, and even gain in some small ways from this.

It seems like growth often comes through combining disciplines these days.

As in "Divide and conquer."

Warm Regards,
S9
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 12:45 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;166149 wrote:
---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 02:02 PM ----------

Mark,

I wish you would elaborate on what you said here to me a little bit more. But do take it in baby steps, please, because it sounds quite interesting.

I think you are indicating that finitude, and maybe even infinity is a process, or a verb constantly becoming, and I could easily agree with this.

Where I believe we might part ways, if I understand you correctly, is in define the tiny world of sub-atomic, and ever smaller, as being more important than the larger world that supposedly builds up from it.

I think the concept of large and small only shows up when the human mind begins to separate things/processes arbitrarily and name them in order to keep them separated.

I question the whole concept of separation. So yes, superimposed, but not necessarily separate. Does that make sense? This may sound a little bit Taoist if we do not also consider Eternity, itself, as not being a process and maybe even transcendent of any process altogether.

In other words Eternity (Being) may be the base upon which process (finitude) is allowed to dance its little dance, and continually become, but more holographically than any actual progressive succession.

I am open to learning of your ideas in this, as I am certainly not a scientist, or a math whiz kid, just a mere metaphysician. ; ^ )

Even if I went off and read for 100 years, I would still not be ready to join you equally from your angle of perspective on this issue, but we might enjoy comparing our two viewpoints, and even gain in some small ways from this.

It seems like growth often comes through combining disciplines these days.

As in "Divide and conquer."

Warm Regards,
S9


Hi Subjectivity,

I'm off to bed now, but your's will be the first post I answer tomorrow, Dying to make a start, don't know where, exactly. But "baby-Steps" is fine with me.

Thank you for replying, have a great day, Sir.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 02:21 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;165897 wrote:
You're on a slippery slope here. It is true that the jihadis believe that Western civilization is evil and should be destroyed, and even though I can see why they think that, nothing makes it right. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but nothing makes the planting of bombs and the dreadful suffering they cause, right.

I have been reading a few of your posts. I can't see where you're coming from, except that you seem eager to please everyone. Would that be a fair comment, or am I misreading you?


Even more important, if there are no good or evil acts, only opinion makes it so, whose opinion is it we are talking about? And what if opinions conflict? Then, whose opinion should we go along with, and why?
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 06:46 pm
@Neil D,
Neil,

Let me try this one out on you. What if Eternity IS the still Point, although full of potential, and finitude along with time and space only occur in pockets (packets?) like dreams might. These dreams come up as totally mental event, or come up and go down without any actual real physicality. Then the creator or the rule maker would be imagination.

Does imagination have to have stable rules? Or can everything just be good clean fun?

Why does everything HAVE to be dead serious? With no place to go and nothing that needs to be accomplished, why couldn’t sheer amusement be the only reason?

Just a thought…

This is not completely mine...it is very Hindu. : ^ )

Warm Regards,
S9
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 07:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;166177 wrote:
Even more important, if there are no good or evil acts, only opinion makes it so, whose opinion is it we are talking about? And what if opinions conflict? Then, whose opinion should we go along with, and why?


I'm with you on all of that. I have read about one of the books you mentioned previously, After Virtue, which I must get around to reading soon. I note that McIntyre converted to Catholicism around the time he wrote this book, and I can see why. I think that of all the schools of ethical theory in current philosophy, the Catholic is the most comprehensive and coherent, even from the viewpoint of one who is not commited to the religion. I suppose this because I believe that the Scholastics preserve the best aspects of the Western tradition, specifically the Platonic and Aristotlean ethical theory.
 
Neil D
 
Reply Wed 19 May, 2010 08:05 pm
@prothero,
prothero;165909 wrote:

Anyone who thinks that the intentional maiming, tortuing and killing of a child is not evil and is just a matter of opinion, has defintiely lost their way.


I find it interesting. That human beings as a whole. Would call the above acts evil. But when performed on a "child" of a different species. Would call it veal.

Good and evil is not always black and white. Perceptions vary at different levels. So its largely a matter of opinion.

---------- Post added 05-19-2010 at 10:55 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;166250 wrote:


Infinite space, and eternal time would be still if that was all that existed. The potential you speak of. This could be where God comes in. Something that exists infinitely, and eternally along with space and time. I wonder about the nature of such a thing.

I would see it as the most fundamental thing that exists eternally. There are many exotic things in theoretical physics that I ponder as possibly being a piece of the puzzle. Things such as: Superforces, Quantum fields, Bosons, or even dark matter/energy, and even gravity.

Funny thing is. If I ever did happen to be right as to the nature of God. I wouldnt know it.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 07:28 am
@Neil D,
Neil,

I don’t think that time by definition can even exist without motion, (Can it?), or at least the concept of motion (AKA change).

Whereas I believe that the concept of Eternity is not exactly synonymous with infinity, infinity is another word representing time.

I believe that Eternity is supposed to represent a lack of time; or change and/or motion, although I am certain that there is much more to it than this if we fleshed these two words out.

I also tend to believe that time is more conceptual, and Eternity is more experiential.

This is where this subject becomes paradoxical. How can infinity and Eternity seem to contradict each other logically, and yet still exist simultaneously?

I personally have to wonder if we are speaking about alternate dimensions altogether, dimensions that do not of necessity interfere with each other, yet at the same time do not necessarily contribute to each other either, not in any physical sense.

The word ‘God’ is such a loaded word and has so many subjective meanings that it is all but useless, without long explanations as to what we mean when we say God, in most conversations. The word God almost works like a monkey wrench thrown into most conversations, esp. with strangers, don’t you think?

Isn’t “potential” by definition the stillness before the storm? Potential doesn’t need to be jumping up and down in place. ; ^ )

Potential can wait quietly (VERY Still) and wait for the right conditions, which will allow it to bloom in all of its glory.

Also, if there were more than one dimension, than perhaps definitions wouldn’t even overlap. In other words, we wouldn’t necessarily define God with physical or mental definitions. Just perhaps the Spiritual would have its own definitions and not be tied down in such a fashion as to make either physical or mental sense.

In the same way as if we were to try to understand fire by studying water that might be the long way around, and possibly we might never arrive at anything useful. ; ^ )

There seems to be two big (major) avenues for studying this issue of time and Eternity that have lived right beside each other for centuries. One is of course reason, an instrument of the mind. The other is a practice called meditation, where a person tries to quiet the mind down and see if there is something outside of the mind’s ideas, or even beyond the mind, which is more essential than the mind.

The meditator doesn’t try to define Eternity. He tries to experience it directly.

I personally use these ways of investigating like the 2 legs on my journey.

Warm Regards,
S9
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 07:49 am
@Neil D,
Neil;166270 wrote:
I find it interesting. That human beings as a whole. Would call the above acts evil. But when performed on a "child" of a different species. Would call it veal.

.


"Child" is right, since baby cattle are not children. They are animals. If baby cattle were not killed and eaten they would not exist in the first place, since they they are raised in order to be eaten. It is not that they are kept as pets, and are snatched from their owners to be eaten, you know.
I suppose you have not heard of "the fallacy of misplaced sentimentality". Well, no wonder. I just made up the name. But I did not make up the fallacy.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 08:26 am
@Neil D,
Kenny,

Are you saying it would be okay to raise human children just for food?
; ^ )
After all, they would not have existed anyway without this lucrative market of exotic foods? Not to mention how it could help population control. : ^ (

I suppose you have not heard of the psychological concept of “RATIONALIZING.”

Got to do better than that in order to convince those of us that think animals are not just here for us to use and abuse any old way that we want to.

I fully realize that we have to eat. But I also think we should balance this necessity with concern for their pain and suffering, and minimize our tendencies to be insensitive and thoughtless, and self important.

We can be practical without siding into either hardheaded or hardhearted.

S9
 
mark noble
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 08:38 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;166149 wrote:

Mark,

I wish you would elaborate on what you said here to me a little bit more. But do take it in baby steps, please, because it sounds quite interesting.

I think you are indicating that finitude, and maybe even infinity is a process, or a verb constantly becoming, and I could easily agree with this.

Where I believe we might part ways, if I understand you correctly, is in define the tiny world of sub-atomic, and ever smaller, as being more important than the larger world that supposedly builds up from it.

I think the concept of large and small only shows up when the human mind begins to separate things/processes arbitrarily and name them in order to keep them separated.

I question the whole concept of separation. So yes, superimposed, but not necessarily separate. Does that make sense? This may sound a little bit Taoist if we do not also consider Eternity, itself, as not being a process and maybe even transcendent of any process altogether.

In other words Eternity (Being) may be the base upon which process (finitude) is allowed to dance its little dance, and continually become, but more holographically than any actual progressive succession.

I am open to learning of your ideas in this, as I am certainly not a scientist, or a math whiz kid, just a mere metaphysician. ; ^ )

Even if I went off and read for 100 years, I would still not be ready to join you equally from your angle of perspective on this issue, but we might enjoy comparing our two viewpoints, and even gain in some small ways from this.

It seems like growth often comes through combining disciplines these days.

As in "Divide and conquer."

Warm Regards,
S9


Hi S9,

I feel I must first introduce M-Theory, only, with a little more imagery - Imagine a water droplet (one visible drop of water) (D1), It is comprised of millions of smaller droplets, but we only need envisage 100. Each micro-droplet is like a cell, and is surrounded by 99 other cells, all jostling for space to expand into, They are fluidic and there is no more room to expand into, without increasing the size of (D1). The time-frame for the cell's growth is relevant to that which resides within, And is 20billion years in the process, to the inner observer. (To you and I, it is but an instant, as we are beyond the process, in our own timeline). In order to expand, The cells must either, invade another cell or be invaded and occupied themselves, but the forces discharged are equal to the forces absorbed, and therefore we have a standoff. We have expanding and contracting in relation to extenal fluidic motion. The cells can divide and divide again, but must, ultimately return to the whole. They are an integral part of the whole (D1).
So, Imagine a bath full of water, which is, indeed, droplets of water, seemingly forming one big pool of water, Pour this into a canal,- one big pool, of many bathfull's of many droplets - Pour this into a lake - Many canalfulls of bathfulls of droplets of cells... Pour this into a sea, then ocean. We perceive ONE expanse of the same material (water), but it is actually An oceanfull of seafulls of lakefulls of canalfulls of bathfulls of dropletfulls of cellfulls of moleculefulls of atomfulls of protonfulls of, etc. I,m sure you get the point by now.

Apply this to the universe (CELL) WE live in and we'll get back to it later.

Thank you, and have a magnificent everything, always.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 08:48 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;166458 wrote:
Kenny,

Are you saying it would be okay to raise human children just for food?


Now, what do you think? (But you might want to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". But, before you get all hot and bothered, let me tell you is is a satire).

Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 01:36 pm
@Neil D,
Kenny,

So I guess someone got to this great culinary idea b/4 you.

S9
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 08:49:38