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...

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.?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

.

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

Kenny,

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