Reply With Quote
Don't even know who the that is.
Then quit trolling.
Don't even know who the that is.
I'm confused about time now. Last night, I was assured to time is a construct of the human mind to state two events did not occur simultaneously. Now, events are dependent on time. Color me puzzled.
Last edited by Chinook; 08-07-2014 at 02:29 PM.
No doubt about that.
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
by Doug Linder (2004)
Journalist H. L. Mencken described himself as “absolutely devoid of what is called religious feeling.
A recent Mencken biographer calls him “one of the last American intellectuals to speak out forcefully, pungently, and satirically against the follies of religion.”
I think you got close, or as close as anyone can get to a definition of the dimension of "time" and science appears to support your view of it.
Time is represented through change, such as the circular motion of the moon around Earth. The passing of time is indeed closely connected to the concept of space.
According to the general theory of relativity, space, or the universe, emerged in the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. Before that, all matter was packed into an extremely tiny dot. That dot also contained the matter that later came to be the sun, the earth and the moon -- the heavenly bodies that tell us about the passing of time.
Before the Big Bang, there was no space or time.
"In the theory of relativity, the concept of time begins with the Big Bang the same way as parallels of la ude begin at the North Pole. You cannot go further north than the North Pole," says Kari Enqvist, Professor of Cosmology.
One of the most peculiar qualities of time is the fact that it is measured by motion and it also becomes evident through motion.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0415115227.htm
posting dictionary terms is your way of getting me to quit trolling?
However this may be closer to the truth since practically everything is illusory.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-an-illusion/
Is Time an Illusion?
The concepts of time and change may emerge from a universe that, at root, is utterly static
By Craig Callender
As you read this sentence, you probably think that this moment—right now—is what is happening. The present moment feels special. It is real. However much you may remember the past or anticipate the future, you live in the present. Of course, the moment during which you read that sentence is no longer happening. This one is. In other words, it feels as though time flows, in the sense that the present is constantly updating itself. We have a deep intuition that the future is open until it becomes present and that the past is fixed. As time flows, this structure of fixed past, immediate present and open future gets carried forward in time. This structure is built into our language, thought and behavior. How we live our lives hangs on it.
Yet as natural as this way of thinking is, you will not find it reflected in science. The equations of physics do not tell us which events are occurring right now—they are like a map without the “you are here” symbol. The present moment does not exist in them, and therefore neither does the flow of time. Additionally, Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity suggest not only that there is no single special present but also that all moments are equally real [see “That Mysterious Flow,” by Paul Davies; Scientific American, September 2002]. Fundamentally, the future is no more open than the past.
God and Time
Any theistic view of the world includes some notion of how God is related to the structures of the universe, including space and time. The question of God’s relation to time has generated a great amount of theological and philosophical reflection. The traditional view has been that God is timeless in the sense of being outside time altogether; that is, he exists but does not exist at any point in time and he does not experience temporal succession. What may be the dominant view of philosophers today is that he is temporal but everlasting; that is, God never began to exist and he never will go out of existence. He exists at each moment in time.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/
You are not paying attention , are you?
I said "god" is unknowable...
Everyone else is saying god is ...whatever...
I never even made the "jump" that the word "god" is an actual "thing"
Why would I ever argue on something unknowable.
None of us are even past - STEP #1
Yet EVERYONE is arguing about STEP #23, STEP #29, STEP #763
When no one bothered or knows what "god" is - and they never will.
So pay attention;
This "god" that all us blind humans are arguing about has nothing at all to do with a real -
(_______ insert labels here ________ )
So the ultimate knowledge of this "topic" is that it is unknowable.
The rest is all "theories, formulas,concepts,stabs in the dark, guesses, opinions"
If that was true you would have supported my arguments about lies in the textbooks.
smh.
Ok, yes or no: there is a higher power
Just trying to help you become part of the discussion rather than trolling it.
You make some excellent points.You are not paying attention , are you?
I said "god" is unknowable...
Everyone else is saying god is ...whatever...
I never even made the "jump" that the word "god" is an actual "thing"
Why would I ever argue on something unknowable.
None of us are even past - STEP #1
Yet EVERYONE is arguing about STEP #23, STEP #29, STEP #763
When no one bothered or knows what "god" is - and they never will.
So pay attention;
This "god" that all us blind humans are arguing about has nothing at all to do with a real -
(_______ insert labels here ________ )
So the ultimate knowledge of this "topic" is that it is unknowable.
The rest is all "theories, formulas,concepts,stabs in the dark, guesses, opinions"
I think you can have "some" TRUE knowledge of the "unknowable",
But not a "complete" knowledge, otherwise God would not be unknowable.
And if there were not at the very least SOME knowledge or inkling of the "unknown or unknowable" (GOD), then the concept of God would never have been conceptualized in the first place, don't you think?
Too many idiotic assumptions.
LOL higher power...now in your puny human mind - you want to classify this "thing" - this "god" as some "higher power"
You are too far ahead already - by ahead - I mean your assumptions are idiotic and full of falseness. You assumed this "thing" was something separate from the universe. Maybe it is maybe it is not - maybe it is the universe.
Then you made another idiotic leap and tried to classify it as either having a higher power - or not. Idiotic - because - you still have no clue what this "thing" is - but you are trying to pigeonhole another person to swallow your idiotic premise - on top of the rest of your idiotic assumptions.
Too much stupid to even consider you as being anywhere near "being awake" yet.
To have gone thousands of years and only arrived at "it is unknowable" -
this "god-thing" is pretty damn impressive!!!!!!!!!
Spamming isn't helping anyone.
Define "awake"
If you need help, you can borrow xmas' dictionary.
Not only impressive, but improbable too, especially considering how early in mankind's collective psyche the concept first originated, that makes it even more impressive.
So yes, that should be the first question one considers.
The second question that needs to be thought about is, if indeed God exists, then does He want us to know about Him, and to what degree?
EDIT: How do you know God is unknowable if nothing can be known of God, isn’t that something you know about him?
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-07-2014 at 04:39 PM.
The dictionary was strictly for you since you are so confused about this.
I think we are going about this in the correct manner, rather than leaving it as an "unanswerable" question simply because God is "unknowable".
Does God (the unknowable essence) exist?
That’s the real point of this discussion.
Also another point is that we don’t have to get stuck with the idea that “God is a mystery (unknowable).”
Instead, we can be encouraged that there are certain kinds of rational filters which allow us to systematically evaluate the different ways in which God may have revealed Himself and some kind of message to us.
And in doing this, we will be far more educated, culturally aware, and well-informed for having conducted an investigation in the first place.
We shouldn't hide behind the idea that “spiritual things are a big mystery (unknowable)" to avoid the hard and careful work of answering such important questions.
If there is a God who can be known, that is one of the most important things to know!
If there isn’t, that makes a big difference too.
Either way, we need to make an informed decision IMHO.
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-07-2014 at 04:37 PM.
Which is why I asked you to give your reasoning. Instead you've only said it makes more sense to say a god did it than to say nothing did it or that it wasn't actually done.
I think we are in agreement about the types of knowledge, but they do exist and they aren't all related to science.
Maybe humans should continue to "seek"
but on the other hand - the other side of the coin....
some mystics say;
"don't seek the truth - just drop your opinions"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions