Timeless existence [Archive]

Atlas

9th February 2004, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.
Lifegazer, Keep up the good work. I've found some corroboration for your existence before time fantasy. Right from my own family tree. Let me tell you about my mom and pop.

Gaea is one of the race of Elder Gods that were there at the founding of Creation. Gaea is the Earth Goddess. A very primordial Goddess that derived from far back in pre-history. Gaea alone conceived Uranus, who she also married and produced the Titans.

Uranus is another of the Elder race of Gods. Uranus was self- produced by Gaea. Their union produced the Titans. Uranus Is the Sky God. He was unfortunately Castrated by His son Chronos. It is thought that he withdrew in deference to Chronos.

So Earth + Sky yielded Time

I hope you bunch of godless atheists are laughing out of the other side of your mouth now. Lifegazer at least deserves the same amount of credibility as this. C'mon.

And there is something else. I've been thinking about a dream I had. In it I discovered the Dead Head Scrolls. And on page one I began to read of Lifegazer's commission. Apparently he was given a vision of Utopia and the Unity of Man. Then in a second vision he saw Armageddon. Then his God spoke to him saying, "Only one of these visions is the future of man."

'Tell me, Tell me - What would you have me do", cried Lifegazer according to the scrolls.

"You must preach of this vision. You must tell them of Me. Using only the tools of Hostility and Antagonism you must teach them of Unity among men. Using only the language of intellectualistic scientificism you must tell them who I really am. If you fail, I will unleash an Armageddon so nasty that no man, no woman, not even the little puppies will survive."

"Who are you sending me to, Oh great Omnipotent Wonderfulness to share your benificent vision of Utopia or Death. I am a slave to your will. I will be relentless" said the quivering and sniveling Lifegazer. Thus say the Scrolls.

Then in a booming voice, like the boundless boom at the crack of doom, God spoke... "You must convert the Atheists."

Laid out straight upon the scrolls were all the posts that Lifegazer would ever write. And in my dream I almost fell asleep. But I caught myself as I began to nod and opened the great scroll to the last line. There was but a single word, written in red, and it was on fire, but it was not consumed, as if it would burn forever. And it said: Boom

Does anyone interpret dreams?

Upchurch

9th February 2004, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
It's the circle of Lifegazer. You missed one step in there where he forgets or ignores either his own or others' previous arguments that contradict his current argument.

Iacchus

9th February 2004, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Atlas

Uranus is another of the Elder race of Gods. Uranus was self- produced by Gaea. Their union produced the Titans. Uranus Is the Sky God. He was unfortunately Castrated by His son Chronos. It is thought that he withdrew in deference to Chronos. So, what's up besides Uranus? ... Time!!!

Actually what this signified was the end of an age and a beginning of a new one ...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33691

Iacchus

9th February 2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

You missed one step in there where he forgets or ignores either his own or others' previous arguments that contradict his current argument. Yes, how can a skunk convince a porcupine how to be anything but a porcupine? Oh, was that you Pepe Le Pew? ;)

MRC_Hans

9th February 2004, 11:19 PM

Dorian Gray

9th February 2004, 11:26 PM

Summary so far for those just joining us:

Lifegazer: "You can't hit me! You can't hit me!

Firing squad: /wham^13

Wudang

10th February 2004, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
You missed one step in there where he forgets or ignores either his own or others' previous arguments that contradict his current argument.

Almost - he'll refer to some previous thread where someone demonstrates that some instantiation of lifegazer's generic assertion that anything he fails to understand is self-evidently wrong (which includes most of maths, science, philosophy, logic and vast swathes of the english language) and claim that he conclusively dealt with that in another thread. Witness, the famous "Upchurch's question" (which I suggest we arrange a birthday part for), QM, relativity, set theory, etc and he's probably going to claim that he dealt with flatworm's proof of the incoherence of "before time" with his crushing "that's silly" riposte.
Another game, Professor Falcon?

Yahweh

10th February 2004, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Time = change... Existence in flux.

But existence must precede the flux which occurs to it. Change is merely an effect or occurance which happens to existence, whatever It may be.
Therefore, there is a timeless existence - and change (time) is something that has been imposed upon it, by existence itself.

The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.
Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.
Existence was, before time affected "her".

Professor Kitten responds:

<blockquote>"Meow meow meow. Meow meow. Meow. Meow meow meow meow mew. Mew mew. Meow meow meow."</blockquote>
That's amazing Professor Kitten!
<blockquote>"Meow meow."</blockquote>
You're welcome, you the man Professor Kitten.
<blockquote>"Meow. Meow meow meow."</blockquote>

Oh, Professor Kitten, you and your crazy kitten sense of humor :)

Graham

10th February 2004, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what's up besides Uranus? ... Time!!!

Actually what this signified was the end of an age and a beginning of a new one ...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33691

Did you know that the chap who discovered Uranus actually wanted to call it "George" but wasn't allowed.

I think that's a shame.

"George" is a much more personable name for a planet, IMO.

Graham

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

10th February 2004, 05:23 AM

Hans said:
Brilliant! Those Greeks sure have something
Well, who be the philosophy man? The Greeks, word up.

~~ Paul

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by scribble
<pre>
oox
xxo
oxx
</pre> "Come on. Learn, goddammit."

:hit:

Iacchus

10th February 2004, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Did you know that the chap who discovered Uranus actually wanted to call it "George" but wasn't allowed.

I think that's a shame.

"George" is a much more personable name for a planet, IMO.

Graham Somebody probably wanted to keep it to the basic theme, right?

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Jet Grind
Things which your argument ignores:

1. Time is relative, not absolute.
2. Having existence before time violates causality. No material object can exist without some sequantial dimension to it's existence.
3. That fluctuations occur where paritcles appear our of a vaccuum is well estabvlished in the scientific community. Therefore, existence does not have to precede time.
4. Since this will inevitabley play into your argument about the existence of God, you're once again forgetting that God is a conscious being who actions must be in some kind of sequence. Hence he cannot exist outside of time. I just wanted to bump this post and point out that Jet Grind did an excellent job outlining the basic flaws in lifegazer's argument in this thread. points 1 and 2 outline his basic misunderstanding about the nature of spacetime. Point 3 points out his misunderstanding about causality (although, lifegazer hasn't explained what is supposed to have existed "before time", whatever that means).

Point 4 deals with an arbitrary definition of God. Jet Grind's description seems to fit lifegazer's concept of his magical sky daddy, but I'm not going to put words into anyone's mouths.

Acrimonious

10th February 2004, 07:27 AM

If time is change
And reality existed before time
How could reality change to allow time?

How can change (no time -> time) come about in a system, which by your own definition, is without change (no time)?

Atlas

10th February 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
If time is change
And reality existed before time
How could reality change to allow time?

How can change (no time -> time) come about in a system, which by your own definition, is without change (no time)?

I wonder if a willful and omnipotent immaterial existence operating before time could blink his own singularity full of space matter and time. It kinda sounds logical, don't it?

Have you ever came home from work and there was a mysterious essence on the air, an invisible essence reminiscent of roasty chicken. And then after washing up you return to the center of your domain and there is a woman and a roasty chicken... as if you willed it to be so.

Well send her home dammit, I'm hungry

Iacchus

10th February 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Did you know that the chap who discovered Uranus actually wanted to call it "George" but wasn't allowed.

I think that's a shame.

"George" is a much more personable name for a planet, IMO.

Graham Yes, but how much more personal can you get than Uranus? :D

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
Have you ever came home from work and there was a mysterious essence on the air, an invisible essence reminiscent of roasty chicken. And then after washing up you return to the center of your domain and there is a woman and a roasty chicken... as if you willed it to be so. huh.

I must be doing something wrong. In my house, I have to make the roasty chicken and the beautiful woman only eats it. Although, she does do the laundry...

Atlas

10th February 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
huh.

I must be doing something wrong. In my house, I have to make the roasty chicken and the beautiful woman only eats it. Although, she does do the laundry...

No... no.... That's probably right. I heard they do things different in Funky Town.

She still bends to your will, doesn't she. Otherwise lifegazer won't let you be God no more.

tdn

10th February 2004, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how much more personal can you get than Uranus? :D

Urethra?

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
She still bends to your will, doesn't she. Otherwise lifegazer won't let you be God no more.You may not have heard. I got married recently.

No godhood for Upchurch.

Acrimonious

10th February 2004, 09:49 AM

I wonder if a willful and omnipotent immaterial existence operating before time could blink his own singularity full of space matter and time. It kinda sounds logical, don't it?

Except, by Lifegazer's definition, the framework doesn't even exist for the willful, omnipotent, immaterial existence to change anything.

Time IS change. Before time, change is not possible. God would be unable to create time, because creating time would be change, which would require time to exist in the first place.

It's basically a twist on the "Can God create a rock he cannot lift" paradox.

The best part of Lifegazer's "new revelation" is: if time DID exist in the first place, then God is not The Primal Cause, because everything God can do is made possible only if time is there first.

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
The best part of Lifegazer's "new revelation" is: if time DID exist in the first place, then God is not The Primal Cause, because everything God can do is made possible only if time is there first. Interesting point.

Of course, lifegazer will probably just use his Incredible Shifting Definition Of God™ to say that if time is the primal cause and existed before God, then time is God. But that just leads back to the original point that nothing existed "before time" which, of course, contradicts lifegazer's original argument at the top of the thread.

circles and circles and circles.

Atlas

10th February 2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
You may not have heard. I got married recently.
Why am I always the last to hear?

Congratulations!

It's kinda funny... I mean... you.

You seemed so... sane.

One might never have guessed that beating beneath that brutish breast lurked a lonely hunter.

scribble

10th February 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
"Come on. Learn, goddammit."

:hit:

Hahaha!

I've got to go see that movie again. That's a fine quote for this particular instance.

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by scribble

I've got to go see that movie again. That's a fine quote for this particular instance. Unfortunately, in context, the lesson to be learned is "futility" and I'm the one who needs to learn it. Too bad I could find one a little more applicable to the woo woos.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Lifegazer got it almost right, but not quite. Here is the correct metaphysic. Read carefully now.

Existence = flux... Time in change.

But time must precede the change which occurs to it. Flux is merely an effect or occurance which happens to time, whatever It may be.
Therefore, there is a existenceless time - and flux (existence) is something that has been imposed upon it, by time itself.

~~ Paul
Change is an event - an occurance. It happens to something.
Transformation (change/time) is not existence. It's what is happening to existence.

Hence, existence precedes the time/change/transformation which occurs to it.

Thus, we can know that existence transcends time.

uruk

10th February 2004, 11:19 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Lifegazer got it almost right, but not quite. Here is the correct metaphysic. Read carefully now.

Existence = flux... Time in change.

But time must precede the change which occurs to it. Flux is merely an effect or occurance which happens to time, whatever It may be.
Therefore, there is a existenceless time - and flux (existence) is something that has been imposed upon it, by time itself.

~~ Paul

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Except, by Lifegazer's definition, the framework doesn't even exist for the willful, omnipotent, immaterial existence to change anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Acrimonious
The best part of Lifegazer's "new revelation" is: if time DID exist in the first place, then God is not The Primal Cause, because everything God can do is made possible only if time is there first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow! you guys have got Lifegazer's shtick down so tight, your arguing Lifegazer's point amoungst each other without a single rebuttal from the man himself. That is SO COOL!

I say we rename Uranus once and for all to stop with the "your anus" jokes. I vote we change it to Urectum.
(Joke used by permission of Futurerama)

(edited to add) OOPS! I posted too late

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Jet Grind
Things which your argument ignores:

1. Time is relative, not absolute.

So? You need to clarify before I can respond.

2. Having existence before time violates causality. No material object can exist without some sequantial dimension to it's existence.

Having existence before time/transformation/change is obviously not a violation of causality.
And material objects and space are effects occuring after existence begins to transform.

3. That fluctuations occur where paritcles appear our of a vaccuum is well estabvlished in the scientific community. Therefore, existence does not have to precede time.

Are you stating that "a vaccuum" = absolute nothingness? And are you asserting that there is absolutely no cause for these events?

4. Since this will inevitabley play into your argument about the existence of God, you're once again forgetting that God is a conscious being who actions must be in some kind of sequence. Hence he cannot exist outside of time.
But God doesn't change. The contents of God's Mind change.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Krandal2
lifegazer

how exactly is your "pre-time existence" which by your definition, must not only be changeless, but constitute everything that exists, be able to eventually give rise to time?
By illusion - in its mind/awareness.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 11:38 AM

Zero

10th February 2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

As I said, only the contents of God's mind are changing. God itself transcends time. Unfounded assertion based on wishful thinking.

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Unfounded assertion based on wishful thinking. Well, yeah. Same ol' same ol'.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Unfounded assertion based on wishful thinking.
I was responding to a statement made about God.

My argument states that existence precedes time/change/transformation. Existence is what change/time/transformation occurs to/within.

There must be a few rational people in here who can acknowledge this?
One, even?
Hope never dies.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by uruk
(edited to add) OOPS! I posted too late
Kinda jumped the gun there pal. Try a different bark.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 01:22 PM

"The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.
Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.
Existence was, before time affected "her"."

Second chance ladies. The truth is more important than you looking cooler than me. Get serious.

Flatworm

10th February 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
"The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.
Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.

I'm sorry, but this is still as incoherent as the first time you said it. What does it mean to say "before time"? The fact that you started the thread with the express purpose of discussing an absurdity doesn't make it any less absurd.

How are defining "before"? It makes sense to define that time increases as we go from causes to effects, then say that an event at time t1 happened before time t2 if and only if t1 < t2. If time began at, say, t=0, this implies that there is no t such that
t < 0, hence nothing can be said to come before the beginning of time.

Let's substitute another contradiction into your argument to see if the form is valid: The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there are square circles. Hence, those that argue that "it is silly to discuss square circles", are incorrect.

Humphreys

10th February 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
The point of this thread is to discuss the premise that there was an existence before the origin of time.

You do realize you are claiming there was a time when there was no time, right?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Second chance ladies. The truth is more important than you looking cooler than me. Get serious.

Your truth is nonsensical. You are a very silly man, lifegazer.

Keep up the good work.

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Second chance ladies.How many chances do the ladies get?
The truth is more important than you looking cooler than me.Thank Gawd we can easily do both at the same time! Get serious. You first.

Acrimonious

10th February 2004, 02:01 PM

As I said, only the contents of God's mind are changing. God itself transcends time

Take Two: How can the contents of God's mind change if the contents of God's mind exist outside of the mechanism you have claimed is a requirement for change (Time)?

And you avoided addressing the problem I pointed out with your previous Primal Cause dogma.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
You do realize you are claiming there was a time when there was no time, right?

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.
So, I am claiming that there is an existence where there is no time/change/existence. To argue against this is to ponder what exists in time. Something must. Therefore, something must precede the onset of change/time/transformation.
The ball's in your court squire. Watch out for those double faults.

Atlas

10th February 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.

What world is that?

The big bang has it all happening at the same instant.

But that's right. First propose God. Then use God to prove God.

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.Have you ever considered that just maybe the first change was from non-existance to existance? That would also be fairly logical. (assuming we all knew about what we were talking the existice of)

Heck, as Atlas points out, it'd even be consistant with observation.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
I'm sorry, but this is still as incoherent as the first time you said it. What does it mean to say "before time"?

It means before change/transformation. Obviously.

It makes sense to define that time increases as we go from causes to effects, then say that an event at time t1 happened before time t2 if and only if t1 < t2. If time began at, say, t=0, this implies that there is no t such that
t < 0, hence nothing can be said to come before the beginning of time.

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).

Math/physics relates to the effects of time. Now that I have opened the door to timeless existence, your ass is mine pal.

Flatworm

10th February 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.

Seems all right to me too, your problem arises when you try to equate change with time. Imagine there is only one point in time. What can change in such a situation? Clearly change requires a comparison between two distinct points in time.

Going back to my earlier (admittedly non-relativistic) model for time, if time begins at t=0, there can be no change until t > 0.

So, I am claiming that there is an existence where there is no time/change/existence.

Great. We've gone from time before time to existence where there is no existence.

Humphreys

10th February 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me.

It's more likely there was never an existence without time, and never a time without existence. That is obvious logic, in my opinion.

Originally posted by lifegazer
So, I am claiming that there is an existence where there is no time/change/existence.

Okay, let's take your idea seriously. Imagine we are in this timeless existence you suppose once existed. There is no time here, no change at all.

Now, without change, how on earth do you propose this existence changed into the existence we experience now?

Originally posted by lifegazer
The ball's in your court squire. Watch out for those double faults.

You are very silly.

Flatworm

10th February 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

It means before change/transformation. Obviously.

Change over what, non-time?

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).

Nothing can be said to come before the onset of time, because the word "before" only has meaning in the context of time.

Math/physics relates to the effects of time. Now that I have opened the door to timeless existence, your ass is mine pal.

Logic can deal with timelessness. Mathematics, as a formalization of logic, can deal with it as well- much better, in fact, than your vague BS buzzwords. What I have offered you is a logical proof that "before time" is incoherent. Refute it if you can, or go away.

I suggest you find a different "ass pal".

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
The big bang has it all happening at the same instant.

The big bang of what?
It's impossible to believe in an external universe and not realise the distinction between substance and behaviour. Time is behaviour... of substance (whatever that substance may be).
Events/change happen to/within existence. Hence, existence precedes events.

The ONLY defense left for you, is to argue that everything proceeded from absolutely-nothing with absolutely no cause. Try that, and I'll reduce your philosophical worth here to that of a chimp.

Wudang

10th February 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).

Translating: "existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to happen at an earlier time than the onset of time. "
Well, obviously it can be said, but surely not with a straight face?

Atlas

10th February 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The big bang of what?
It's impossible to believe in an external universe and not realise the distinction between substance and behaviour. Time is behaviour... of substance (whatever that substance may be).
Events/change happen to/within existence. Hence, existence precedes events.

The ONLY defense left for you, is to argue that everything proceeded from absolutely-nothing with absolutely no cause. Try that, and I'll reduce your philosophical worth here to that of a chimp.

I was out of line.

I now feel I should have asked Iacchus for the best post number to synchronistically address a timeless singularity approaching absurdity in time (existencewise).

I will linger in the wings til the stars align in numeric perfection.

Upchurch

10th February 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Lifegazer starts a thread by spouting some pseudointellectual drivel.Check.He gets hammered.Check.He tries to defend himself but winds up looking even more ridiculous.Check.

So far, everything is right on track.

Wudang

10th February 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The big bang of what?
It's impossible to believe in an external universe and not realise the distinction between substance and behaviour.

You mean matter and energy? Surely one who has grasped the fundamentals of relativity as deeply as yourself has heard of E=you-know-what?

uruk

10th February 2004, 03:16 PM

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, only the contents of God's mind are changing. God itself transcends time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting. so that means something has to exist before change can happen to it(time). So, if existance is only in god's mind. and only the contense(existance) of god's mind is changing(time), yet god itself transcends time. Hmmm....

That means that this existance had to have existed before god's mind became aware of it. (just using your logic)

Also that are at least two parts to god: god's mind which is changing, and the other part of which does not change, whatever part that is. I thought you said god was indivisible. And indivisible means no individual parts.(using your definition)

It seems to me that you keep getting lost in your own words.
I think the problem is that you use no standard by which to define the words you use.

If you argue using QM and Classical physics you have use the established definitions used in those areas. other wise your talking a different language and your going to confuse yourself.

You read this stuff and apply a definition to some of the words which are not intended by the author. You must make use of the glossary. When you read QM and it talks about "quarks" and "spin" you don't actually believe they are talking about cottage cheese and angular momentum do you?

oh yea. BARK, BARK!

Edited to add (your definition)

Iacchus

10th February 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Atlas

I was out of line.

I now feel I should have asked Iacchus for the best post number to synchronistically address a timeless singularity approaching absurdity in time (existencewise).

I will linger in the wings til the stars align in numeric perfection. Actually it doesn't really work that way. It has less to do with making predications than following through with it in real time -- more of a matter of what pops up -- and taking it from there. Does that mean I'm making it up as it goes? I suppose, but the results I achieved with Mercutio's 3347th post (this is probably a number I won't be forgetting anytime soon) was pretty uncanny. I recommend you check out the thread, Synchronicity / James Randi? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35113)

By the way this was your 68th post, which corresponds to Judith (12) (http://www.dionysus.org/x0404.html#88), and signifies The Advent of the New Church. Beyond that nothing else comes to mind but, like I said, that may be just a matter of time.

So, how did you derive your username, Atlas, was this derived from the Atlas of mythology who, through his rebellion against Zeus and the Olympians, was punished by having to hold up the Universe for eternity? Doesn't sound like much of a better fate than Uranus' if you ask me. Of course the transfer of power into Zeus' hand signified the end of an age and a beginning of a new one, much as Uranus' fate represented the same thing ... http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33691

Also, with respect to Judith (12), it signifies the dawn of a New Church (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html#7).

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
"I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me."

Seems all right to me too,

Exactly. But you have to resist because of the ultimate conclusion.
God must be destroyed so that 'you' can live. I know the score.

Going back to my earlier (admittedly non-relativistic) model for time, if time begins at t=0, there can be no change until t > 0.

Time is change. Your equations say nothing other than "There can be no change until changes begin to occur.".
You don't address the origins of that change. You certainly don't acknowledge that something has to be the object of change.

Humphreys

10th February 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way this was your 68th post, which corresponds to Judith (12) (http://www.dionysus.org/x0404.html#88), and signifies The Advent of the New Church. Beyond that nothing else comes to mind but, like I said, that may be just a matter of time.

Do me, do me!

What does my post correspond to? It must correspond to something because of the whole fundamental interconnectedness of all things, thing.

Well?

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys
It's more likely there was never an existence without time, and never a time without existence. That is obvious logic, in my opinion.

Then you're "silly" Humphrey, and have totally disregarded everything I've said here. I wouldn't mind but it's very simple logic: Changes are occuring (to something). Therefore, something must exist prior to the onset of those changes.

Existence is not 'change'. Change is something which is happening to whatever exists. Therefore, existence precedes change/time.

Okay, let's take your idea seriously. Imagine we are in this timeless existence you suppose once existed. There is no time here, no change at all.

Not to IT (existence itself). If you knew more of my philosophy, you'd understand that the changes/time relate to what that existence is perceiving within itself. I.e., time relates to what happens inside [the Mind] of Existence. To the things it perceives within itself.

Now, without change, how on earth do you propose this existence changed into the existence we experience now?

Thought-experiment: picture two red balloons. Now picture them separating. Now picture them changing colour. Now picture them bursting. Now answer this question: Did this experiment change your awareness/mind itself, or just the things within its perception?

You are very silly.
You're behind the times squire. I'm actually insane... apparently.

Atlas

10th February 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually it doesn't really work that way. It has less to do with making predications than following through with it in real time -- more of a matter of what pops up -- and taking it from there. Does that mean I'm making it up as it goes?... ]
Your post almost made me drop the sky. Geez Iacchus, I was counting on your help. I figured logic, spoof and ridicule weren't working, maybe Numerology had a chance. Darnitall!

As to the last line above that I quoted, on Lifegazer threads people have almost stopped caring.

So, how did you derive your username, Atlas, was this derived from the Atlas of mythology who, through his rebellion against Zeus and the Olympians, was punished by having to hold up the Universe for eternity? Doesn't sound like much of a better fate than Uranus' if you ask me. Of course the transfer of power into Zeus' hand signified the end of an age and a beginning of a new one, much as Uranus' fate represented the same thing.
After what happened to Daddy, I stuck with Chronos against Zeus. Yah, we lost. That's what got me into my current fix. Still, I kept my parts. So I got that going for me.

lifegazer

10th February 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
Nothing can be said to come before the onset of time, because the word "before" only has meaning in the context of time.

Rubbish. If "time" is understood to be 'change', then "before time" is understood to be 'un-change'.
An unchanging-existence is consistent with the philosophy of an unchanging-God who has changing thoughts/perceptions.
And clearly, an unchanging-existence has to be the essence of its own changes.

Logic can deal with timelessness.

Reason (words) can. Math (numbers) cannot.

Mathematics, as a formalization of logic, can deal with it as well- much better, in fact, than your vague BS buzzwords. What I have offered you is a logical proof that "before time" is incoherent. Refute it if you can, or go away.

Your fancy math are screwed in this thread. You cannot use math in relation to God (timeless existence). Math mirror the world of the relative and changing. I have crossed that threshold here.

Iacchus

10th February 2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Humphreys

Do me, do me!

What does my post correspond to? It must correspond to something because of the whole fundamental interconnectedness of all things, thing.

Well? Well, being your 140th post, it brings to mind Highway 140 in Southern Oregon, which begins in White City, at the northeast end of the Rogue Valley just north of Medford, and traverses up over the Cascade Mountains and ends up in Klamath Falls, Oregon. While I remember making this trip way back when and it was kind of interesting. 20 yeaers ago? Wow! For reference to the Rogue Valley here, please refer to my link on the The New Church (http://www.dionysus.org/x1201.html).

The numer 140 is also Rachel's (14) (http://www.dionysus.org/x0404.html#102) number ... 14 x 9 + "14" = 140 or, 14 x 10 = 140 ... and signifes the completion of the masuline side in the woman and in effect signifies true love (14) ... where the mans' father (1) plus the woman's mother (4) equals true love (14). For more clarification here please refer to my link on The Marriage (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html).

That's about all I can say for now, except that I had been thinking about the significance of Highway 140 for some time (and gave it up some time ago), but hadn't really come up with anything. So maybe something will come out of that? Also, since 140 = 10 x 14, as well as 14 x 9 + "14," I suspect it might have something to do with the relationship between the numbers 9 and 10, and possibly 14 and 0 ... i.e., 14 x 10 + "0" = 140.

Hey, I just noticed that the last three digits of this post are "479," which is pretty significant in and of itself. While I had referred to this in the post regarding Mercutio's number (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35113) and in the post, You want more Proof (2)? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33588)

I also noticed this was my 1010th post and, when adding its reciprocal, "0101," you get 1111 ... which corresponds to the resurrection of the Two Witnesses (i.e., 10 + 01 = 11) in Revelation 11:11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+11)

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. - Revelation 11:7-11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+11)Also note that verse "1111" of Euripes - The Bacchae (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33760) describes the fall of Dionysus' cousin Pentheus.

While I also describe my own personal incident here in Chapter x1111 (http://www.dionysus.org/x1111.html) of my book.

Iacchus

10th February 2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Atlas

Your post almost made me drop the sky. Geez Iacchus, I was counting on your help. I figured logic, spoof and ridicule weren't working, maybe Numerology had a chance. Darnitall!

As to the last line above that I quoted, on Lifegazer threads people have almost stopped caring.Well, maybe lifegazer is correct in the sense that The Moment is Eternal, and that God -- as does everything else -- exists in the moment.

After what happened to Daddy, I stuck with Chronos against Zeus. Yah, we lost. That's what got me into my current fix. Still, I kept my parts. So I got that going for me. Yeah, you gotta be careful who you chose sides with, right? ;)

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
"Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence)."

Translating: "existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to happen at an earlier time than the onset of time. "
Well, obviously it can be said, but surely not with a straight face?
Something has existence.
Something cannot emanate from and amongst absolute nothingness.
Something has always existed.

Existence itself doesn't "happen". It Is.

What can be seen here is two things:
(1) Existence precedes the [perceived] changes which occur within it. Existence precedes the time which happens to it.
(2) Existence itself is the origin of change... the primal-cause of time.

Again, I have brought you close to your God. And again, I shall await the brushes and the rug. And once more, I shall remind you all that you have one life and one chance. Don't go to your deaths knowing you had betrayed the truth.

Tricky

11th February 2004, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I also noticed this was my 1010th post and, when adding its reciprocal, "0101," you get 1111 ... which corresponds to the resurrection of the Two Witnesses (i.e., 10 + 01 = 11) in Revelation 11:11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+11)
Got a hot flash for you, Iacchus. 0101 is not the reciprocal of 1010. At most, it is a palindrome of the digits. I guess we need to add "reciprocal" to the ever-growing list (like "soul", "consciousness", "base-14", "physics", "mathamatics", and "morality") of words and terms of which you have no clear understanding.

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, being your 140th post, it brings to mind Highway 140 in...

No offense mate, but could you discuss this in another thread?
Thankyou.

Zep

11th February 2004, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

No offense mate, but could you discuss this in another thread?
Thankyou. Why should he? His future posts have yet to materialise and so exist in your "time". So they are either immaterial posts as far as you are concerned (exists but not in time) or they are the Word of God (same reasoning).

Yes?

Wudang

11th February 2004, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Something has existence.
Something cannot emanate from and amongst absolute nothingness.
Something has always existed.

Existence itself doesn't "happen". It Is.

What can be seen here is two things:
(1) Existence precedes the [perceived] changes which occur within it. Existence precedes the time which happens to it.
(2) Existence itself is the origin of change... the primal-cause of time.

See, if you keep using sloppy language you'll keep having sloppy thoughts. What does "always" mean? Since the beginning of time? What does "precedes time" mean? It happened at an earlier time than time did?
Maths is about intellectual rigour, not about the phenomenal world about which it makes no assumptions but it can be applied to the same.

Iacchus

11th February 2004, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

No offense mate, but could you discuss this in another thread?
Thankyou. Yeah, I was just getting ready to reply to Ticky Dick here, but we don't want to get him started now do we? :D

How about if I reply below and leave it at that then?

Also, I started a new thread, A Literal Bible? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35315) if anyone wants to argue with me there.

Originally posted by Tricky

Got a hot flash for you, Iacchus. 0101 is not the reciprocal of 1010. At most, it is a palindrome of the digits. I guess we need to add "reciprocal" to the ever-growing list (like "soul", "consciousness", "base-14", "physics", "mathamatics", and "morality") of words and terms of which you have no clear understanding. What are you suggesting there's a strict code here, by which "none" are left to deviate? And yet using the most "suitable" word, it's fairly clear what I'm trying to say here now isn't it? ;)

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Wudang
See, if you keep using sloppy language you'll keep having sloppy thoughts. What does "always" mean? Since the beginning of time?

No, because it means before time too. How can there be before time, I hear you asking. The answer is simple: since time is change, then before time refers to existence before changes began to be perceived within it.
I've already showed why existence must precede time. So, before time, existence is.

What does "precedes time" mean?

Before the onset of change. Unchanging-existence.

Upchurch

11th February 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've already showed why existence must precede time. But you haven't addressed the possibility that the first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
But you haven't addressed the possibility that the first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
You think there's a possibility that all changing-existence had an origin from absolutely-nothing and without any cause?

Upchurch

11th February 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You think there's a possibility that all changing-existence had an origin from absolutely-nothing and without any cause? Have you heard nothing that anyone has posted on this board besides yourself?

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
You think there's a possibility that all changing-existence had an origin from absolutely-nothing and without any cause?

Have you heard nothing that anyone has posted on this board besides yourself?
I want you to confirm that this is your position. Spare me the babble. Then I can answer the question.

Upchurch

11th February 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I want you to confirm that this is your position. Yes, lifegazer, that is my position. :rub:

Tricky

11th February 2004, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
But you haven't addressed the possibility that the first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
Well, duh, Upfunk. You must be in the slow class. Here is the proof right here.
Originally posted by lifegazer

Something has existence.
Something cannot emanate from and amongst [b]absolute nothingness
Something has always existed

I don't know how you could have missed it. Eyeglazer has repeated this proof many times. Each time he repeats it, it becomes truer. I have observed the same phenomenon of repetition=truth applying to urban legends. Stop trying to argue that which is apparent to the reciprocal of everybody.

Upchurch

11th February 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I don't know how you could have missed it. Opps. Someone better go out and stop all that Hawking radiation out there that doesn't really exist now.

:eek:

Atlas

11th February 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, duh... Stop trying to argue that which is apparent to the reciprocal of everybody.

Thanks Tricky. That's what I've been trying to say. But I had it upside down.

Upchurch

11th February 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I have observed the same phenomenon of repetition=truth applying to urban legends. Stop trying to argue that which is apparent to the reciprocal of everybody. hmmm...

How about this argument: The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.Is it truth yet? Do I get any extra points for it being consistant with observed reality?

Tricky

11th February 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
hmmm...

How about this argument: The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.Is it truth yet? Do I get any extra points for it being consistant with observed reality?
Well, that's proof enough for me. Unfortunately, now I have to report you for spamming.

Upchurch

11th February 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, that's proof enough for me. Unfortunately, now I have to report you for spamming. Blast.

So, the question is, do I edit my own post to make it conform with forum rules, or do I recuse myself like Mercutio did and let someone else take care of it? :con2:

Atlas

11th February 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Blast.

So, the question is, do I edit my own post to make it conform with forum rules, or do I recuse myself like Mercutio did and let someone else take care of it? :con2:

In terms of the Timeless Existence, Upchurch... You're already hosed.

Zero

11th February 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
hmmm...

How about this argument: The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.
The first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.Is it truth yet? Do I get any extra points for it being consistant with observed reality? Now that it has been quoted a couple of times, it is now MORE true, right? Or, in Lifegazer-speak "MORE-true"...gotta hyphenate!

Upchurch

11th February 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Now that it has been quoted a couple of times, it is now MORE true, right? Or, in Lifegazer-speak "MORE-true"...gotta hyphenate! More true? We're using fuzzy logic now? *sigh*

Well, I suppose some logic is better than proof through repitition....

Suddenly

11th February 2004, 12:41 PM

We can end this thread now. ESPN.com has spoken on the subject:

Dear Stump Page 2,

What would happen if you invented a time machine and went back in time before existence existed?

-- Mark Polinsky

While genius cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking can only speculate as to what existed prior to the "Big Bang" origin of the current physical universe, two scenarios seem probable:

a.) You'd be vaporized into subatomic particles. If you're lucky.

b) The Arizona Cardinals would still be below .500.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/040211

Soapy Sam

11th February 2004, 01:38 PM

Lead me...in the phrase 'Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.', what precisely is meant by the word "before"?

uruk

11th February 2004, 02:31 PM

well wouldn't existance without time be no existance?

no time=no change=no awareness=non-existance.

for there to be awareness there must be a change form non-awareness to awareness. So if there was no time (change) before time then there would be no awareness (since there is no change)which would mean no existance.

So THUS I have proved that time and existance (and awareness)came into being from nothingness at the same time.

You would have to be a complete blithering, brainless, drooling, card carrying democrat not to see this or think otherwise.

bow down to your new god you sniveling creatins or I will smite thee with my turgid logic again.

Flatworm

11th February 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Exactly. But you have to resist because of the ultimate conclusion.
God must be destroyed so that 'you' can live. I know the score.

Time is change. Your equations say nothing other than "There can be no change until changes begin to occur.".
You don't address the origins of that change. You certainly don't acknowledge that something has to be the object of change.

Do you have A.D.D.? Try reading a whole paragraph next time before you comment. I agree that something must exist before it can change, but time is not change. It cannot be, as can be verified by considering a universe with only one point in time.

That is what my mathematical argument shows. It is (or should be) self evident that there cannot be change before change existed, time before time existed, sheep before sheep existed, etc. The proof goes further than this, however, in demonstrating that change cannot exist at the very beginning of time, if there is one. It therefore cannot be equated to time.

The origins of change is an entirely different question from whether or not it is logically coherent to talk about time before time. It is a question of cause, and we've already hashed that out before. You fail to take into account alternative possibilities.

To go back to the mathematical argument, it is entirely possible that whatever happened to exist at t=0 is the cause of all subsequent change. We don't need to invoke minds outside the universe at all. This is all assuming, of course, that time had a beginning.

Flatworm

11th February 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Rubbish. If "time" is understood to be 'change', then "before time" is understood to be 'un-change'.

Except that I've already logically demolished your whole "time=change" claim. What does "before" mean, in the absence of time (you still haven't answered that question).

An unchanging-existence is consistent with the philosophy of an unchanging-God who has changing thoughts/perceptions.
And clearly, an unchanging-existence has to be the essence of its own changes.

The changes of an unchanging existence. I'll add that one to "time before time", and "existence without existence".

Reason (words) can. Math (numbers) cannot.

How idiotic. Natural language, like it or not, is still a collection of symbols together with rules of syntax for putting them together. Mathematics is also a language, but designed for the purpose of rigorous reasoning. You obviously know nothing about either philosophy or mathematics.

Your fancy math are screwed in this thread. You cannot use math in relation to God (timeless existence). Math mirror the world of the relative and changing. I have crossed that threshold here.

Math (and symbolic logic in general) can "mirror" anything that we can talk about using natural language. It is simply another language, designed to do away with ambiguity. Math is perfectly capable of dealing with the absolute and the static, but you wouldn't understand that, since you know nothing of it.

To reject math and symbolic logic as irrelevant is to reject logic itself as irrelevant. Since you have repeatedly done exactly that, you must be beyond the reach of rational discourse.

Flatworm

11th February 2004, 02:54 PM

Here's an idea, LG: Try to define "before time" without using time-related adjectives like "before", or "preceeding".

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
Here's an idea, LG: Try to define "before time" without using time-related adjectives like "before", or "preceeding".
"Before time" = before change = whilst unchanging.

Time is not existence. Rather, time is what is occuring to existence. Existence precedes time = unchanging-existence is before a changing-existence.

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
Do you have A.D.D.?

Possibly. I'm already silly and insane.

Try reading a whole paragraph next time before

Before what?!

you comment.

Oh. Okay, I'll try.

Is there any point in me debating these issues with you? I will, but I don't won't to do it unless you take me seriously. Somehow, I don't think that's ever going to happen. Your mind is bolted tight.

lifegazer

11th February 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
"You think there's a possibility that all changing-existence had an origin from absolutely-nothing and without any cause?"

Yes, lifegazer, that is my position. :rub:
And you call yourself a rational man?

... Firstly you expect the readers of your own personal philosophy to believe that there was once a state of absolute nothingness. Zilch. Jack all. Not just empty space, but zero dimensions of anything (space included), and even a mind.
Then, you expect these readers to believe that suddenly, without any cause or reason, a whole universe of diverse relative-order came into being, by itself, into the preceding nothingness.

And what possible justification might you have for presenting this as a reasonable philosophy?
- That in spacetime, individual particles are known to appear from no apparent source, throughout time.
Yet this is not a justification for holding your irrational viewpoint. For when discussing the origin of existence, we are not discussing the pre-existing state of the spacetime arena in which such material events can occur.
In other words, quantum fluctuations are individual material events which occur in pre-existing spacetime. Whereas the origin of the universe is the sudden mass-introduction of practically all of the matter in the universe, into a spacetime that didn't even exist (absolute nothingness, remember?) before that matter existed.

So, your fluctuations occur individually, within pre-existing spacetime. Whereas the origin of the universe considers the origin of mucho spacetime and mucho matter-stuff, simultaneously.

Hence, not only is your belief irrational (something from nothing and without cause, is irrational); but it is also without basis, since
you found your idea upon individual quantum events within pre-existing spacetime. Yet the idea of existential origin must focus upon a realm of absolute nothingness (in your philosophy) combined with the appearance of countless quanta.
Not the same thing squire.
Double fault.

Flatworm

11th February 2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Before time" = before change = whilst unchanging.

You can't do it, can you?

Time is not existence. Rather, time is what is occuring to existence. Existence precedes time = unchanging-existence is before a changing-existence.

How can anything "precede" time? The idea is nonsensical. Of course, since I have already demonstrated that change is not the same as time, let's try replacing the word "time" with "change" and see if your argument makes sense:

Existence precedes change= unchanging existence is before a changing existence.

That is to say, that there was some period of time after the beginning of existence during which there was no change. Then, suddenly, there was change.

Is this what you're getting at?

While this is not logically incoherent in and of itself, it's a far cry from a proof. There is certainly no evidence that our universe must have been this way.

If you want me to take you seriously, you need to come up with serious logic- that means getting rid of ambiguity.

Define your terms clearly (no circular definitions, please!) and adhere to those definitions. Find the best word for what you mean and use it- avoid collections of (often dissimilar) terms strung together with backslashes or hyphens. Don't say something is logically impossible or irrational unless you can demonstrate that it is so- ask yourself if the idea necessarily leads to its own contradiction.

I'm sure others can add to this list.

As to my mind being bolted down tight, remember that I am the one who admits the logical possibility of many different ways that the effects we see today could have come into being. You are the one who claims to know the one Truth, and who furthermore dismisses all of physics and formal logic offhand.

Tricky

11th February 2004, 06:51 PM

Geez guys, look it is obvious what was there before time. Look at evolution for your answers. Before time there were little proto-timeoids floundering around in the primordial chronological soup. These simple sequences could barely grasp the concept of order, much less form complex eras and eons.

But as time didn't pass, they grew wiser and more punctual. They learned complex schedules and subtle things like punchline delivery, until they emerged as the modern time scale you see today. It is a triumph of patience that gives us such marvelous things as "Swatches" and "Easy Payment Plans".

But do not denigrate their humble, timeless beginnings. They rose from poor nanoseconds to great millenia by pulling themselves up by their own mainsprings. They took a licking and kept on ticking.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Flatworm
"'Before time' = before change = whilst unchanging."

You can't do it, can you?

I just did. Time is the perception that existence is in divisible/relative flux (is changing). Before time, is when existence is absolutely indivisible, hence not in perceived flux.
What's so difficult to understand about that?

"Time is not existence. Rather, time is what is occuring to existence. Existence precedes time = unchanging-existence is before a changing-existence."

How can anything "precede" time? The idea is nonsensical.

Time is what happens to existence. So, before time refers to existence when this occurance (time/change/flux/divisibility) wasn't happening. Simple and rational.

My argument is that before time, there was timeless existence.
Time = (relative) change = divisibility.
Therefore, timelessness = absolutely-whole = indivisible existence.

An indivisible existence is God.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Lead me...in the phrase 'Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.', what precisely is meant by the word "before"?
Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic.

Upchurch

12th February 2004, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

And you call yourself a rational man?Sometimes. More often I call myself **** Upchurch, but that's not important right now.
... Firstly you expect the readers of your own personal philosophy to believe that there was once a state of absolute nothingness. Zilch. Jack all. Not just empty space, but zero dimensions of anything (space included), and even a mind.But that's not my own personal philosophy. It's the generally accepted scientific theory based on observation and logic. The same scientific theory, I might add, that you say your philosophy (which I'll point out is your "own personal" as you are the only one that holds it) is in complete agreement with.
Then, you expect these readers to believe that suddenly, without any cause or reason, a whole universe of diverse relative-order came into being, by itself, into the preceding nothingness.Sure. The phenomenon of quantum fluctuation is well demonstrated in nature (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Hawking+Radiation). Cosmic Inflation (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Cosmic+Inflation) is a tad less backed as a theory, but it fits the facts.

Actually, I'd have to take issue with the term "suddenly". "Suddenly" is a time based term and really isn't clear in the boundry situation that we're discussing, but I'm fine using it in the vernacular.
And what possible justification might you have for presenting this as a reasonable philosophy? It fits with observed phenomenon, as explained above. To say that it is unreasonable is to suggest that observation is unreasonable. That wouldn't bode well for your philosophy which attempts to describe an alternate theory for the source of those unreasonable observations, would it?
- That in spacetime, individual particles are known to appear from no apparent source, throughout time.Again, happens all the time. We see it in the form of Hawking Radiation which has been detected from here on Earth.
Yet this is not a justification for holding your irrational viewpoint. For when discussing the origin of existence, we are not discussing the pre-existing state of the spacetime arena in which such material events can occur.I'm not sure what irrational viewpoint you are referring to. My original question was about the possibility that the "first change" (i.e. the beginning of time) was from non-existance to existance. This is supported by observed phenomena and backed by logic. I fail to see how it is "irrational" in regards that it is "without reason".
In other words, quantum fluctuations are individual material events which occur in pre-existing spacetime.Ah. No. Perhaps this is where you are confused. Quantum flucutuations occur co-existant with spacetime, not pre-existant. Now it is entirely possible that there "were" other spacetimes "prior" to our own. (English is such a poor language to talk about these things.) But those other spacetimes go away with the mutual anilation of the particle pair.
Whereas the origin of the universe is the sudden mass-introduction of practically all of the matter in the universe, into a spacetime that didn't even exist (absolute nothingness, remember?) before that matter existed.No. You don't understand. Matter/energy and spacetime are interdependent. There is no such thing as one without the other. Their origins absolutely coincide. One cannot proceed the other.

It's a tough idea. People have been struggling with it for less than a century and people who are unfamiliar with the nuances, like yourself, struggle all the more.
So, your fluctuations occur individually, within pre-existing spacetime.No. Within a co-originating spacetime. Whereas the origin of the universe considers the origin of mucho spacetime and mucho matter-stuff, simultaneously.Mucho compared to what exactly?
Hence, not only is your belief irrational (something from nothing and without cause, is irrational); but it is also without basis, since you found your idea upon individual quantum events within pre-existing spacetime.This has been your strongest argument so far. Congratulations.

I've made no secret that Quantum Mechanics is probably the most frustrating subject in physics for me. I don't understand probably 90% of it. So, in that respect, I do take a lot of what I've read on the subject on faith.

Not a blind faith, however. I know that the people that I read have gone through the same peer review process that all scientific work must go through. If the results are generally accepted, that means it has been verified on many levels by people who are much smarter than I am. It also means that if I truly applied myself (which, for me, would require giving up my current life and devoting years to study), I could verify those results personally. As I happen to like my life as it is, I'm going to take the lazy route and accept what has gone through the process.

So, how do they extrapolate a phenomenon that occurs in a already-existing spacetime (note the correct use of chronological terms) to a non-existing spacetime set? I have no idea. Someone does, though. I might have to take the time to research that someday.

We do know that acausal events occur, disproving the notion that there must be a cause for everything. You, yourself, admit to something (God) being acausal. You just use circular reasoning to justify it. i.e. God doesn't have a cause because God is, by definition, without cause. The scientific theory, at least, uses phenomena that we know and can prove exists and doesn't rely on magical entities of whom we have no evidence.
Yet the idea of existential origin must focus upon a realm of absolute nothingness (in your philosophy) combined with the appearance of countless quanta. But you haven't discounted it as a possibility. You simply refuse to consider it. So what? How do you know that the first change wasn't from non-existance to existance? You still haven't answered that question.

If you can, just answer it so we don't have to go into "Upchurch's other question".

Upchurch

12th February 2004, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic. Actually, time isn't just change. It is a physical axis of spacetime. Something sitting perfectly still, at absolute zero for instance, would still be traveling along the local time axis even though it goes through no change. To speak about time where there is no spacetime is paradoxical because it references something that we've granted doesn't exist.

Dancing David

12th February 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic.

The only point I can make Lifegazer is that you are again just making assumptions about things that can not be known and therefore they will always remain speculation!

It is fine to speculate about what there was prior to the universe that we percieve, but then you go and just assume that 'before change there was no change", now that is just great as speculation but how can you say that you have proved this to be true?

Before time={a set of circumstances that could be a lot of things that we can not examine or find evidence of}

How can you say that before time there was no change, it is very likely that whatever it was that gave rise to the percieved universe that it was changing just as likely as unchanging. there is no way to ever know.

So that leaves you back at the primal cause thing, because you will always regress to the primal cause and then say that the primal cause was unchanging... but this is just pure speculation, because of the closed nature of space time you can not examine the primal cause!

Let me repeat that:

You can not examine the primal cause, so all conclusions you draw are speculation!

There is no way that it is possible to determine what anything was like prior to the percieved universe, that is something a child could understand, are you willing to return to the state of a child?

Upchurch

12th February 2004, 10:53 AM

I've been trying to think of a good, simple analogy. This may have flaws, but lets take a whack at it.

Imagine a DVD:

LG: "I want to know what happens on the DVD before the movie."
UP: "Well, there is menu and some trailers, I suppose."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "...I guess there might be some formating data."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "What do you mean? Before the beginning of the disk?"
LG: "Yes, what is before the beginning of the disk?"
UP: "Nothing."
LG: "There must be something before the beginning of the disk."
UP: "Uh, no."

and so on.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
It is fine to speculate about what there was prior to the universe that we percieve, but then you go and just assume that 'before change there was no change", now that is just great as speculation but how can you say that you have proved this to be true?

There must be an existence before it can proceed to change.
Very simple and obvious logic really. You err to label my reasoning an assumption.

Before time={a set of circumstances that could be a lot of things that we can not examine or find evidence of}

Time = change. Before change, existence wasn't changing. It's a no brainer, as you lot say. I have no idea why you cannot see it, since I'm sure that you do have a brain.

How can you say that before time there was no change, it is very likely that whatever it was that gave rise to the percieved universe that it was changing just as likely as unchanging. there is no way to ever know.

Consider time in its entirety, stretched before & beyond the big bang if you like. It doesn't matter - my argument remains the same: before time, existence is.

God is so easy to see.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've been trying to think of a good, simple analogy. This may have flaws, but lets take a whack at it.

Imagine a DVD:

LG: "I want to know what happens on the DVD before the movie."
UP: "Well, there is menu and some trailers, I suppose."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "...I guess there might be some formating data."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "What do you mean? Before the beginning of the disk?"
LG: "Yes, what is before the beginning of the disk?"
UP: "Nothing."
LG: "There must be something before the beginning of the disk."
UP: "Uh, no."

and so on.
You and your liberal use of "nothing" will get you into alsorts of trouble as a philosopher.
Before the disk, there was the thought of the disk, and the will to build it.

Upchurch

12th February 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You and your liberal use of "nothing" will get you into alsorts of trouble as a philosopher.
Before the disk, there was the thought of the disk, and the will to build it. Oh fun. you don't understand the analogy either. Well, it certanly isn't worth dumbing down an analogy for you.

Dancing David

12th February 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

There must be an existence before it can proceed to change.
Very simple and obvious logic really. You err to label my reasoning an assumption.

There must be an existance before it can procede to change.

That right thar, it is an assumption. If existance cames into being from something else that was changing then existance came into being from a process of change.

That is very simple and obvious logic as well. You are merely predicating that unchanging procedes change. there is no proof to it. My logic is as strong and equal to your, for they are the same.

Time = change. Before change, existence wasn't changing. It's a no brainer, as you lot say. I have no idea why you cannot see it, since I'm sure that you do have a brain.

What you fail to pretend to see Lifegazer, and I know that you are just pretending to not understand it is this,
The universe as it exists contains the 'element' of time to it. There is no way to observe anything outside of the universe of perception.
Therefore all discussion of what there was prior to the universe we percieve is speculation.
Whatever is was that the universe came from it may have been changing.

Consider time in its entirety, stretched before & beyond the big bang if you like. It doesn't matter - my argument remains the same: before time, existence is.

And that existance is unknowable, there is no way to know what it might or might not have been or being it is. Before time there may have been existance and it may have been changing.

You assume the stasis.

You can not prove it.
[/b]

God is so easy to see. [/B]

No brainer dude, I already know that.

Where you point the flashlight is important.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
"There must be an existance before it can procede to change."

That right thar, it is an assumption. If existance cames into being from something else that was changing then existance came into being from a process of change.

The clue to your wayward reasoning has been highlighted. One state-of-existence emanates from another. It does this by changing. But changing doesn't precede the thing that is changed. Change is not tangible. Only existence itself is tangible.

Dancing David

12th February 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The clue to your wayward reasoning has been highlighted. One state-of-existence emanates from another. It does this by changing. But changing doesn't precede the thing that is changed. Change is not tangible. Only existence itself is tangible.

That assumes that the case for the promal cause is the correct case. It is just as likely that there is an infinite recursion of causes that feed back into themselves and end up chasing themselves and creating themselves. A circular cause is just as likely a linear one, because there is no way to determine the case for the ultimate cause.

I hate to tell you this LG but all oberservable existance is predicated upon change, there is no way as of yet to determine if the promal cause is linear or circular.

Can you point to 'existance' which is consious that is not predicated upon change?

That is why your speculaton is speculation, if I stated that the universe went back in time and created itself, then that would be speculation as well.

They are both speculation.

Upchurch

12th February 2004, 02:44 PM

Scribble must be wearing off on me. I keep hearing a certain movie line in my head. And I actually think I'm going to listen to it this time.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 03:02 PM

An infinite number of effects cannot cause anything to happen, since an infinite number of effects themselves never happen.
No infinite process is ever completed. None. You cannot say that this post is the completion of an infinite process. That's ridiculous, and anyone with a modicum of sense and sincerity would acknowledge it too.
Everything that exists has an origin, or is a primal-cause without origin. The effects of time are not a primal-cause... they have an origin within one though.

You guys are fooling yourselves. You avoid accepting the most obvious logic so that you don't have to believe there is a God. You're all insane. Completely crazy.

Soapy Sam

12th February 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic.

Sorry. I am confused.
According to my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century), before (ignoring its positional aspect) means "Sooner, earlier than, in the past, formerly, previous to the time when..."

Prior means "previous (as an adjective) or previously (as an adverb)."

All of these equivalents are references to linear time.

The phrase "Before time" , while grammatically well formed, is literally meaningless, like "Solecism flavour" or "White smelling".

You cannot , meaningfully, argue like this; at least not in English.

There is no word in English which refers to the phenomenon you are trying to describe here. This does not mean the phenomenon does not exist, merely that the concept is undefined in English.
And, I suspect, undefinable.

Perhaps in mathematics?

uruk

12th February 2004, 03:46 PM

No infinite process is ever completed

That's right. It just keeps going on and on. no start or end

It's just our limited human perception that thinks there has to be a start and end. QM shows that the univers does not operate on what we would consider common sense or causality.

The problem with all the arguments here is that we are using our human notions to describe this univers. Granted we have no other way of percieving the universe, but that does not mean the univers follows our wishes. The Michelson/Morely experiment comes to mind.

Flatworm

12th February 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I just did.

Really? Let me refresh your memory:

I said:

Try to define "before time" without using time-related adjectives like "before", or "preceeding".

and you replied:

"'Before time' = before change = whilst unchanging."

"Before" and "whilst" are time-related adjectives.

Time is the perception that existence is in divisible/relative flux (is changing). Before time, is when existence is absolutely indivisible, hence not in perceived flux.
What's so difficult to understand about that?

Time is what happens to existence. So, before time refers to existence when this occurance (time/change/flux/divisibility) wasn't happening. Simple and rational.

No, it's not rational. If you define time this way, then you can't rationally talk about "before" change, nor can you say that "before" time is "when" this wasn't happening, because "before" and "when" only make sense in the context of time.

It seems in your head, you have created the definition "time=change", but then continue to use a different definition of time so that you can talk about the universe "before" change. If time starts at some point, you cannot 'rewind' time to before that point and talk about "before"- because time doesn't extend that far.

Remember what I said about choosing one definition and sticking to it?

My argument is that before time, there was timeless existence.
Time = (relative) change = divisibility.
Therefore, timelessness = absolutely-whole = indivisible existence.

I see you've completely disregarded what I said about ambiguity. I also wish you would do away with such abuse of the "=" symbol. If Time= change, Time = (relative) (What do the parentheses mean, anyway?), and change = divisibility, then divisibility = (relative). I guess that would mean your God-concept is indivisible to you but might be divisible to other observers.

I would also like to see your proof that change is equivalent to divisibility. Imagine what it would be like if the universe had only one dimension and had finite length, call it 1 unit, and had only one point in time. Imagine that the only things that exist are two entities (call them "particles"), one located at either end of space. Clearly here existence is divided, yet does not change. Can you give a physical reason to support your assertion?

Dancing David

13th February 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
An infinite number of effects cannot cause anything to happen, since an infinite number of effects themselves never happen.
No infinite process is ever completed. None. You cannot say that this post is the completion of an infinite process. That's ridiculous, and anyone with a modicum of sense and sincerity would acknowledge it too.
Everything that exists has an origin, or is a primal-cause without origin. The effects of time are not a primal-cause... they have an origin within one though.

You guys are fooling yourselves. You avoid accepting the most obvious logic so that you don't have to believe there is a God. You're all insane. Completely crazy.

This is still all just speculation, while it is a fine speculative statement there is no way you can prove it do be true. If there were an infinite number of effects then there would be a probability that one of them could go back in time and create itself.

What you are demonstrating is an amazing anthrocentrism LifeGazer, it is just a product of the following process:
1. I see what i am taught.
2.What I am taught is true.

this statement is just as true for what i just said:
and anyone with a modicum of sense and sincerity would acknowledge it too

but you are too stuck on your tiny little idea of what you think god is to even imagine that you could be wrong. Which makes you a preacher and not a philospoher.

An infinite number of effects cannot cause anything to happen, since an infinite number of effects themselves never happen.

This just shows your stuck in a rut, an infinite series of things could happen simultaneously/(in a contingent moment), an infinite series can extend sideways in time/space. You are thinking only about linear time.

and anyone with a modicum of sense and sincerity would acknowledge it too

lifegazer

13th February 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
If you define time this way, then you can't rationally talk about "before" change, nor can you say that "before" time is "when" this wasn't happening, because "before" and "when" only make sense in the context of time.

Before time, was timelessness. (makes sense)
This just tells us that there was timeless-existence before a changing-existence. There's nothing wrong with that. You're just scraping the barrel to find flaws.

If time starts at some point, you cannot 'rewind' time to before that point and talk about "before"- because time doesn't extend that far.

You are making the mistake of stating that "before" always refers to a previous state of change. When in fact, it just refers to a previous state of existence.
So - and this is the crucial point - if that previous state of existence happens to be the unchanging-source of time, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the term "before time" (before change).

RussDill

13th February 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You are making the mistake of stating that "before" always refers to a previous state of change. When in fact, it just refers to a previous state of existence.
So - and this is the crucial point - if that previous state of existence happens to be the unchanging-source of time, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the term "before time" (before change).

so an unchanging existence changed to a changing existence.

Acrimonious

13th February 2004, 08:05 PM

This is exactly the question I posed at the start of the thread.

How can something that is defined as unchanging, change into something else?

He has yet to address this paradox.

Atlas

13th February 2004, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
so an unchanging existence changed to a changing existence.

I'm glad it didn't change from an unchanging existence to a changing nonexistence

It sounds like my brother in law, Lumpy - Bummer

lifegazer

14th February 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
This is exactly the question I posed at the start of the thread.

How can something that is defined as unchanging, change into something else?

It's defined as an unchanging existence until it changes into something else. And then it's defined as a changing existence.
Hence, the origin of change (time) is existence itself. As I said earlier, existence precedes change = existence is the cause of change/time = existence is, essentially, timeless.

The cause of time/change is not ~nothing~, but is timeless-existence itself. Take note all you "voidsters".

lifegazer

14th February 2004, 11:10 AM

I'd also like to add - because it is important - that time/change is perceived to occur.

Those of you that know my philosophy should also know that there's no way of knowing if what we perceive via abstract inner-sensation is also occuring outside of awareness.

So, existence is inwardly aware of time, to be exact.

uruk

14th February 2004, 02:09 PM

This just tells us that there was timeless-existence before a changing-existence

Sorry, you can't have existance without time.

In order for something to exist you have to have two parameters
One is location, the other is time. When something existsts it has a time reference.

Those of you that know my philosophy should also know that there's no way of knowing if what we perceive via abstract inner-sensation is also occuring outside of awareness.

I thought you said there is no awareness outside of perception

lifegazer

14th February 2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by uruk
In order for something to exist you have to have two parameters
One is location, the other is time.

You obviously know little of quantum-mechanics Sir/Madam. No thing has absolute existence at time and location. The only things that have absolute existence at time and location, are those things existing within our perception. And those things existing within our inner perception, are subjective/abstract things. I.e., the things we actually see, directly through our senses, are not real.
We all see within ourselves. We see nothing beyond our own Self.

When something existsts it has a time reference.

... Against everything else within your awareness.

I thought you said there is no awareness outside of perception
I did. And there aint.
My point is that time itself is an inner perception, as though it affects those things within perception, but not existence itself - which gave rise to time/change in the first instance.

In other words, time/change appears to be a phenomenon which occurs within timeless-existence. It's all one big illusion or dream occuring within a changeless reality - that of the eternal Mind of God.

Acrimonious

14th February 2004, 09:04 PM

It's defined as an unchanging existence until it changes into something else. And then it's defined as a changing existence.
Hence, the origin of change (time) is existence itself. As I said earlier, existence precedes change = existence is the cause of change/time = existence is, essentially, timeless.

The cause of time/change is not ~nothing~, but is timeless-existence itself. Take note all you "voidsters".

You are missing the point of the question.

You have something that is completely without change. How does it CHANGE to allow CHANGE to occur if it is UNCHANGING?

Your philosophy is built on a paradox.

lifegazer

15th February 2004, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
You are missing the point of the question.

You have something that is completely without change. How does it CHANGE to allow CHANGE to occur if it is UNCHANGING?

Your philosophy is built on a paradox.
In my philosophy, those changes occur within perception, so that the things seen therein are constantly changing; whilst the creator and observer of those things - [The Mind of] God - remains unchanged, always.

So, perception changes, but the Mind does not. There is no paradox within my philosophy.

Dancing David

15th February 2004, 06:41 AM

The paradox remains LifeGazer:

Prior to the changing there was the perception by the meta-mind of it's changeless state.
In the advent of the changing occuring with in perception,

The perception changes from unchanging to changing, in the act of the phase shift the perception of the meta-mind does change.
Ergo the meta-mind has changed.

There are potential resolutions to the paradox:
-the perceptions are not actualy part of the meta-mind.
-the perceptios were always of change.
-the perceptions were always of stasis.

But if the perceptions occur within existance than a change of perception causes a change within existance.

Atlas

15th February 2004, 07:08 AM

Lifegazer,
I just had a thought. (No foolin)

These naysayers remain unconvinced because they think you don't really know the mind of God at all.

What if you told them what was going to happen tomorrow. You know, make it real - bring it home. Iacchus does something very close. He tells us the numerological significance of what just happened.

If you could tell us something about what will happen - near term (not that Armageddon thing) - you'd get even more respect.

I know this would be a turn-around from your backward stance but I hope you consider it in the spirit it's offered.

Yours in timeless incongruity,
Atlas

lifegazer

15th February 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
The paradox remains LifeGazer:

Prior to the changing there was the perception by the meta-mind of it's changeless state.
In the advent of the changing occuring with in perception,

The perception changes from unchanging to changing, in the act of the phase shift the perception of the meta-mind does change.
Ergo the meta-mind has changed.

Only what is seen within - what is perceived - is changing. The seer is not. Whatever the seer sees, the seer remains, essentially, God.

Acrimonious

15th February 2004, 02:01 PM

You have an unchanging God who perceives no change.

Then something CHANGES.

Now you have an "unchanging" God who perceives change.

How did the unchanging God CHANGE to allow his perception to CHANGE when he is UNCHANGING?

The paradox is still there.

lifegazer

15th February 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
You have an unchanging God who perceives no change.

Then something CHANGES.

Perception changes, but not God. The contents of the Mind change, but not the Mind itself.

How did the unchanging God CHANGE to allow his perception to CHANGE when he is UNCHANGING?

The unchanging God didn't change. The contents of God's mind did though.

The contents of God's mind are not real. Only God is real. Hence, time is also an illusion, since time is caught-up with those illusory things of the mind. Nothing really changes. There is not really any time. It's just the way things appear.

Existence is unchanging... timeless. And time is a dream which God has had on countless occasions.

Acrimonious

15th February 2004, 04:25 PM

Let's try this again.

You have an unchanging God. Its form is incapable of change. Its mind is incapable of change. Any part of it is incapable of change. Hence, UNCHANGING.

Then something CHANGES.

Now you have an "unchanging" God whose mind has "contents" that change.

How did the unchanging God CHANGE to allow his mind's "contents" to CHANGE when he is UNCHANGING?

The paradox is still there.

Atlas

15th February 2004, 05:54 PM

There is a mystery,
Beneath abstraction,
Silent, depthless,
Alone, unchanging,
Ubiquitous and liquid,
The mother of nature.
It has no name, but I call it "the Way";
It has no limit, but I call it "limitless".

Tao Te Ching -- Interpolation by Peter Merel

The Eternal Moment of Pure Idea
Shatters in immaterial twinkle
Particles of Idea sleep on a sea of time
And all that is awakens to a Dream

Tao of Atlas

uruk

15th February 2004, 08:25 PM

You obviously know little of quantum-mechanics Sir/Madam.

That applies to knowing two parameters to any arbitrary precision at the same time. Says nothing about generalities. It seems you know very little about QM.

The only things that have absolute existence at time and location, are those things existing within our perception.

Perception requires a change. hence things exist prior to our percetion. Was it you or Interesting Ian that was arguing that nothing exists untill we percive it. If was not you then, my appologies.

It's all one big illusion or dream occuring within a changeless reality
How can somthing "occur" within something that is changeless?
That occurance would be a change would it not? An occurance is something that "takes place". That occurance has to take place in time and it would take time to occur. Since time=change, you saying that you have change in something that is changeless. You don't seen to be making sense.

uruk

15th February 2004, 10:01 PM

The contents of the Mind change, but not the Mind itself.
How can the contents of god's mind change without mind being changed itself? If the changes are separate from god's mind then how can god affect the contents without causing a change in himself?
Then what changes the contensts?

The unchanging God didn't change. The contents of God's mind did though.

Isn't the contents a part of the mind? after all it takes place "in" the mind. How can god be unchanging if the contents of his mind are changing?

The contents of God's mind are not real.(I guess this means god is empty headed)Only God is real. Hence, time is also an illusion, since time is caught-up with those illusory things of the mind. Nothing really changes. There is not really any time. It's just the way things appear.

Then god has no effect over this illusion, in order for god to have an effect there must be a change in god.

OR. only we percieve time and thus causality. so causality is just an illusion. So there is no primal cause, it's only an illusion of our perception.

Dancing David

16th February 2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Only what is seen within - what is perceived - is changing. The seer is not. Whatever the seer sees, the seer remains, essentially, God.

I respectfully suggest the that you have set up a dualism:
The parts of the seer that are unchanging
and the pasrts of the seer athat are changing, IE thier perception.

I am assuming that the perception are part of the seer, are you making them seperate from the seer?

lifegazer

16th February 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Let's try this again.

You have an unchanging God. Its form is incapable of change. Its mind is incapable of change. Any part of it is incapable of change. Hence, UNCHANGING.

Then something CHANGES.

Now you have an "unchanging" God whose mind has "contents" that change.

But the contents are not real. They are imaginary. So, nothing is really changing. All change (time) is an illusion.

How did the unchanging God CHANGE to allow his mind's "contents" to CHANGE when he is UNCHANGING?

The unchanging God didn't change. The act of thinking about imaginary things does not change who God is.

Edit to add: The act of thinking/perceiving about things only changes what God is aware of. It does not change God itself.

lifegazer

16th February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I respectfully suggest the that you have set up a dualism:
The parts of the seer that are unchanging

The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"

and the pasrts of the seer athat are changing, IE thier perception.

These things are illusory. They don't have existence.
There can be no dualism between the seer and those things seen since those things seen do not exist.

Only the seer exists.

Atlas

16th February 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Now you have an "unchanging" God whose mind has "contents" that change.
How did the unchanging God CHANGE to allow his mind's "contents" to CHANGE when he is UNCHANGING?

Response by lifegazer
But the contents are not real. They are imaginary.

Originally posted by Dancing David
I respectfully suggest the that you have set up a dualism:
The parts of the seer that are unchanging...

Response by lifegazer
The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"
These things are illusory. They don't have existence.
Only the seer exists.

The seer is indivisible. The contents are imaginary, illusory, and don't have existence and they are indivisible with that seer.
Suggesting the seer too is imaginary and illusory... a lifegazer dream.

Acrimonious

16th February 2004, 01:54 PM

The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"

OK...

The unchanging God didn't change. The act of thinking about imaginary things does not change who God is.

Edit to add: The act of thinking/perceiving about things only changes what God is aware of. It does not change God itself.

Wait a minute there, LG. First God is indivisible. Now, there's an unchanging part and a thinking part.
A real part, and an imagined part... From your own description, God sounds pretty darn divided to me.

This is yet another paradox. God is one or the other, LG. Either God is indivisible or God is divisible. You can't have it both ways, or your "philosophy" becomes contradictory and irrelevant.

Here's some more questions I have now that you've given this new data:

The obvious question: If God is INDIVISIBLE, why have you DIVIDED God into a physically real form and a mental imagination?

The recurring theme: If God is INDIVISIBLE and UNCHANGING, How can any part God (real or imagined: God is indivisible, see) CHANGE?

The bonus "awareness" question: If God is NOT indivisible, and the imaginary part CAN change, how is it possible for God's AWARENESS to change, when God is OMNISCIENT? God's awareness of everything would, by default, be UNCHANGING: It would always encompass everything.

scribble

16th February 2004, 02:12 PM

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Or something like that.

lifegazer

16th February 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by scribble
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Or something like that.
We'll have to start calling you cliche' girl.

lifegazer

16th February 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Wait a minute there, LG. First God is indivisible. Now, there's an unchanging part and a thinking part.

God thinks. God doesn't have something else (another part) do God's thinking for it. I.e., God doesn't have a brain.

What this means, is the the act of thinking is a characteristic/trait of God. It's not a "part", but an ability.

The obvious question: If God is INDIVISIBLE, why have you DIVIDED God into a physically real form and a mental imagination?

I haven't. You don't know much about my philosophy for you to state this. My God is boundless (indivisible) existence, residing at singularity, without beginning or end (possessing no definite position).

The recurring theme: If God is INDIVISIBLE and UNCHANGING, How can any part God (real or imagined: God is indivisible, see) CHANGE?

Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like.

The bonus "awareness" question: If God is NOT indivisible, and the imaginary part CAN change, how is it possible for God's AWARENESS to change, when God is OMNISCIENT? God's awareness of everything would, by default, be UNCHANGING: It would always encompass everything.
God is indivisible. Question void.

Atlas

16th February 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Imagined parts aren't real...God is indivisible. Question void.
I like Vishnu for indivisibilty.

In the cosmic night before the appearance of the manifest world, Lord Vishnu sleeps in the cosmic ocean of causal waters, reclining on the serpent, Shesha , sometimes called, Ananta (meaning "the eternal"). Vishnu holds within his body all of the elements of creation, including the creator god, Brahma. As Vishnu dreams, a lotus plant grows out of his navel, and from a drop on one of the petals of the lotus, the creator god, Brahma, emerges. From Brahma emerges the great Cosmic Egg (Anda) which is this manifest universe, including the celestial worlds or heavens at the top, the mundane world of ordinary life in the middle, and the nether worlds or hells in the lower regions of the Cosmic Egg.

I think it's exactly the same as lifegazer describes, only different.
Very samefull and singularityish only with lots of stuff. Dreamstuff.

Is this helpful?

Upchurch

16th February 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like. I think what he's saying is that if God is indivisible (i.e. you can't break God down into parts), then if a "part" of God changes, all of God is changing (that "part" being the whole indivisible thing, which is God). Further, it must be impossible to speak of God's mind, since that references a part of God, rather than the whole.

If God is indivisible into parts, then part of God cannot change and, at the same time, part of God can change because those parts would be the same part. It's a logical conflict.

uruk

16th February 2004, 04:29 PM

What this means, is the the act of thinking is a characteristic/trait of God. It's not a "part", but an ability.

An ability implies change.

Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like.

Yea, but something has to imagine. there has to be a process in imagining. the mind has to activle participate in imagining. there fore a change has to take place. god cannot be changeless and imagine.

God is indivisible. Question void.
restating dogma does not address the issue.

Dancing David

17th February 2004, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The seer is indivisible. There are no "parts"

These things are illusory. They don't have existence.
There can be no dualism between the seer and those things seen since those things seen do not exist.

Only the seer exists.

That is a real nice dodge LifeGazer, but you are still a dualist! Monism is a very hard sell, because if everything is one then everything is part of the one.

Duality:
-the seer is real and indivisible
-the perceptions of the seer are illusiory even though they are part of the seer.

So again you have the duality in your alleged indivisible singularity. There is the god and then there is the god that is illusiory.

Why would there be seperate parts to an indivisble singularity?

To just say that they are illusiory is still a dualism.

Dancing David

17th February 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God thinks. God doesn't have something else (another part) do God's thinking for it. I.e., God doesn't have a brain.

What this means, is the the act of thinking is a characteristic/trait of God. It's not a "part", but an ability.

I haven't. You don't know much about my philosophy for you to state this. My God is boundless (indivisible) existence, residing at singularity, without beginning or end (possessing no definite position).

Imagined parts aren't real. That's why they can do whatever they like.

God is indivisible. Question void.

So now you still have the dualism Lifegazer and just asserting that it isn't a dualism does not mean that you aren't taking a unity and dividing it.

So can abilities change, isn't this dualism, there is this god that is unchanging, and so now you give god abilities to avoid the idea that god has seperate parts. But abilities are still dualistic in nature.

Answer this
In the begining god was without illusion and unchanging.
God uses an ability to create perceptions that are illusiory.

Where do the perception occur? Even if they are illusiory that creates a duality of seer and illusion.

The solution of monism is obvious, and the obverse of nihilism.

If everything is one, and all that there is , is within the god, then all things(all things conceptual or actual) are within that god and therefore they are part of that god.

There is no illusion under monism LifeGazer, this is very old thought.

You are not a monist you are a gnostic!

Dancing David

17th February 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

We'll have to start calling you cliche' girl.

Gee Scribble, you must have really got to him for him to whine like this!

I dub thee

Dogma Boy!

Acrimonious

17th February 2004, 08:58 AM

I think what he's saying is that if God is indivisible (i.e. you can't break God down into parts), then if a "part" of God changes, all of God is changing (that "part" being the whole indivisible thing, which is God). Further, it must be impossible to speak of God's mind, since that references a part of God, rather than the whole.

If God is indivisible into parts, then part of God cannot change and, at the same time, part of God can change because those parts would be the same part. It's a logical conflict.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Lifegazer's dogma breaks down like this:
(A) God is indivisible and has no sub-parts.
(B) God is unchanging.
(C) God has a sub-part that can change.

(C) directly contradicts both (A) and (B). Lifegazer tries to rationalize this by saying the sub-part from (C) is imaginary and doesn't really count.

But it still leaves us with a divided God: The unchanging real part, and the changing imaginary part. This still directly contradicts (A).

All he needs to do to fix this obvious logical boo-boo is to admit he has a dualism:
(A) God is dual.
(B) The physical, real sub-part of God is unchanging
(C) The imaginary sub-part of God can change.

But this would require Lifegazer to admit he used a big philosophical word (indivisible) when he shouldn't have. Since he's here to preach, not to discuss, him admitting he made an error in his dogma has a very low probability of ever happening.

Since lg will never learn, I'm going to take a cue from Scribble. But this thread isn't a total loss, since I've gotten a nice signature out of it.

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

Lifegazer's dogma breaks down like this:
(A) God is indivisible and has no sub-parts.
(B) God is unchanging.
(C) God has a sub-part that can change.

(C) directly contradicts both (A) and (B). Lifegazer tries to rationalize this by saying the sub-part from (C) is imaginary and doesn't really count.

But it still leaves us with a divided God: The unchanging real part, and the changing imaginary part. This still directly contradicts (A).

If I rationalise this by saying that the changing part is not real, where is the division? How can there be a real division between what is real and what isn't real?
Imagine a mermaid. How far beyond you is she? Where is the division between her and your awareness?

Clearly, there is no such distance or division between your awareness and the things imagined within it. Likewise for God.
There is no division between God and what he imagines within "his" awareness.

You're still treating imaginary things as real objects. This is the source of your own confusion.

All he needs to do to fix this obvious logical boo-boo is to admit he has a dualism:
(A) God is dual.
(B) The physical, real sub-part of God is unchanging
(C) The imaginary sub-part of God can change.

(A) I'll admit no such thing. You are making the boo-boo.
(B) God is not "physical".
(C) Imaginary things change. Not God.

But this would require Lifegazer to admit he used a big philosophical word (indivisible) when he shouldn't have. Since he's here to preach, not to discuss, him admitting he made an error in his dogma has a very low probability of ever happening.

I have used reason every step of the way here. Don't accuse me of preaching. I've tried my utmost to explain to you why there is no real division between God and the things within God's perception. How can there be any division when those things don't even exist?
All that exists, is God, complete with awareness. An awareness that is free to think of various things without affecting any fundamental change in the nature of God itself.

What's the difference between God and God imagining a mermaid? Same God, different thoughts.

Since lg will never learn, I'm going to take a cue from Scribble. But this thread isn't a total loss, since I've gotten a nice signature out of it.
Okay, walk away then.

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by uruk
An ability implies change.

The ability to have thoughts is a trait of God. The eventuality of God having thoughts does not change God. It just changes what God is thinking about, if anything.

Yea, but something has to imagine. there has to be a process in imagining. the mind has to activle participate in imagining. there fore a change has to take place. god cannot be changeless and imagine.

The Mind/awareness is indivisible. There are no two separate points of existence within it. Indeed, such things are impossible in a boundless singularity.
Therefore, God is not a body with different points/parts. Therefore, any mental/emotional act undertaken by God changes nothing within the singularity of that God.

All that changes, is imaginary things within that singularity of awareness. That's a fact.

Now, if you want to ask me how God creates a whole realm of imaginary things within a singularity of awareness, then I won't be able to answer. Only God itself (not lifegazer) can answer that.

Dancing David

17th February 2004, 12:18 PM

But if god changes from a state of thinking about one thing to another, that is a change.

And now you still have the duality of
-god:real
-what god imagines:not real

so is god's imagination part of god?

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
But if god changes from a state of thinking about one thing to another, that is a change.

Why do you all keep repeating the same mistake?
The only thing that changes, is the imaginary things within God's awareness. Since these things are not real however, then
nothing changes whatsoever.

There's no difference between God and God thinking about a mermaid. The only difference is in the things God is thinking about. Yet these things are not real anyway. Nothing ever changes, except what's upon God's awareness.

There are no two points of existence within God. God cannot change. The attributes of God are not attributes of a body, but of the whole indivisible mind/spirit/soul. Whatever you want to label The existence of God.

so is god's imagination part of god?
It's a trait. It's not a part, and definitely not apart.

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
I like Vishnu for indivisibilty.

I wouldn't like to comment since I don't know enough about it. It's slightly vague.

I did read the Bhagavad Gita recently and was very impressed with it.

I also think that Jesus (not Christianity) had the same philosophy as me. I was particularly awestruck by John's mystical testament.
I liked Isiah, too.

It appears to me that a few religions have tried to portray God as the whole of existence, but that through time, mankind has contaminated those teachings. I cannot be a Christian, for example, even though I think Jesus was who he proclaimed to be.

My philosophy challenges the establishments of philosophy, science and religion.

Only God exists. You are God. Distance yourself from your sensations and know thyself.

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
You are not a monist you are a gnostic!
Doesn't a gnostic rely upon intuition?
I only use reason when presenting an argument. Whatever I think has to make sense of existence. Feelings must proceed reason or they betray us.

Atlas

17th February 2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer on Vishnu
It's slightly vague.

Originally posted by lifegazer on lifegazer
I also think that Jesus (not Christianity) had the same philosophy as me. I was particularly awestruck by John's mystical testament.
I liked Isaiah, too.

It appears to me that a few religions have tried to portray God as the whole of existence, but that through time, mankind has contaminated those teachings. I cannot be a Christian, for example, even though I think Jesus was who he proclaimed to be.

My philosophy challenges the establishments of philosophy, science and religion.

Only God exists. You are God. Distance yourself from your sensations and know thyself.
Lifegazer, there is no doubt your vision is something beyond ordinary rational thought. When I get a chance to tease you about scientifistic language it's because you are speaking of visions whose truth is traditionally reserved for poets and mystics.

Said otherwise, if you wish to express the vision to unite mankind, you need to find less divisive avenues. If there is a scientific notation for the logic you employ, I don't know it. Your truth is best expressed some way beyond logic. People are more receptive to visionaries who charm with language rather than slice and dice it. To awaken others to your truth you will need more charm, although it's doubtful you will find any receptive audience in this forum.

As an example of charmlessness, this first sentence betrays your message. Even when you are articulate in the expression of it, reasonable men have chosen to differ. Is the fault entirely with them?

Originally posted by lifegazer a few posts back
... How can there be a real division between what is real and what isn't real?... I have used reason every step of the way here. Don't accuse me of preaching. I've tried my utmost to explain to you why there is no real division between God and the things within God's perception. How can there be any division when those things don't even exist?...

My Vishnu story is an example of what some people will embrace. Millions perhaps. Somewhere along the line you are going to need to dress up your vision and walk it around to the masses. To compress the thoughts of the last several posts I would word things this way. (I offer this only as an example of how to express your deeper insights.) It has a drawback in that it lifts the conversation outside of science and logic but something like this can give shape to your vision that a thousand words of logic will fail to.

Volition sleeps the sleep of God
And Volition dreams all things
In Volition's dream light, all things spin
And all things at once reflect Volition

uruk

17th February 2004, 04:02 PM

Imagine a mermaid. How far beyond you is she? Where is the division between her and your awareness?

the mermaid is not real. but the process by which the mermaid is imagined is real. At least in humans, you can actually see the effects of imagining on the brain via positron scan and electroencephelograph and blood flow.

that which is imagined is not real. but the imagining is real. it is a process. you can not separate the mind from the process. especially if god is aware of the dream or imagination. if god is aware of the dream then there is change in god.

I've tried my utmost to explain to you why there is no real division between God and the things within God's perception. Then there is no division between god and the imagination. therefore god is changing.

The ability to have thoughts is a trait of God. The eventuality of God having thoughts does not change God. It just changes what God is thinking about, if anything.

This doesn't negate what I have said.
If god is having thoughts then god is changing. There was god before he had a thight then there is god during his thought, then ther is god after his thought has passed.
You cannot separate the thought from god. otherwise it is not god that is having the thought.

Now, if you want to ask me how God creates a whole realm of imaginary things within a singularity of awareness, then I won't be able to answer. Only God itself (not lifegazer) can answer that.
If you do not how he does this, then you you have to admit to the possibility that you could be wrong about the unchanging aspect. because that means you have reached an impass in your reasoning.

It's a trait. It's not a part, and definitely not apart. A trait is just a description of some characteristic of something. It does not negate that an ability implies change. An ability is the power to do something. If you are DOING something then there is change.

Nothing ever changes, except what's upon God's awareness.
Again if god is aware then there is change in god

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Lifegazer, there is no doubt your vision is something beyond ordinary rational thought.

Lots of [professional] philosophers and countless amateurs have applied reason to the concept of "God". So I'm not sure why you'd say this.

When I get a chance to tease you about scientifistic language it's because you are speaking of visions whose truth is traditionally reserved for poets and mystics.

Okay... fair enough... you have a point. But even though I am not a student of philosophy, I am aware of several famous philosophers who harped a similar tune to myself (if not note for note). Let's face it, if it wasn't for God, philosophy would have nothing to talk about. Science would have a monopoly on [the lack of] truth.

Said otherwise, if you wish to express the vision to unite mankind, you need to find less divisive avenues. If there is a scientific notation for the logic you employ, I don't know it.

How can there be? Science seeks to explain how the [illusory] order of the universe exists. So, if that order emanates from God,
whom (as it [let us assume] turns out) is the only entity in existence, then science needs some radical reformation before it can incorporate 'God' into its equations.

My philosophy is not anti-science. There is a perceived order within relative-existence... and half of the job of science is to recognise this order. The other half is to recognise its origins.

... My frustration with science is that it has been corrupted by materialistic philosophy. I.e., it is assumed that there is an external (to awareness) reality which exists without primal-cause. Why? Gawd knows. There's certainly no reason to assume those things, and if you question me enough I shall show you why.

Your truth is best expressed some way beyond logic.

You want the truth of God to be poetic/mystical because God is worthy of such romantic grandeur. And God is.
There are two problems here however:
(1) Writing like Shakespeare or name-your-poet is not my forte.
(2) Writing like those aforementioned characters means that my philosophy would be "vague". As I said to you earlier, such evocative literature of those ancient or poetic mystics is often difficult to decipher.

I'm talking to the "average Joe" here. My philosophy is for the common-man - everyone. I aim to make it as simple as can be. Lucky really, because I'm quite simple myself.
I think there's a beauty in that itself. I sometimes think that poets and philosophers often forget that their philosophy needs to relate to mankind as a whole before mankind as a whole can relate to it. In other words, philosophy for the elite will always be worthless in that the masses will never understand it.

People are more receptive to visionaries who charm with language rather than slice and dice it. To awaken others to your truth you will need more charm, although it's doubtful you will find any receptive audience in this forum.

I've been here for about 4 months. I'm well aware of this. But this is the best place to learn how to change the world, wouldn't you agree?

Somewhere along the line you are going to need to dress up your vision and walk it around to the masses.

I am sometimes guilty of [attemped] profundities. To be honest, I envy Shakespeare and the poets. But, to be honest, it is the simplicity of my philosophy which makes it so worthwhile. It's not difficult to understand and it can be read by everyone.
As it should be.

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by uruk
the mermaid is not real. but the process by which the mermaid is imagined is real. At least in humans, you can actually see the effects of imagining on the brain via positron scan and electroencephelograph and blood flow.

"Processes" seen within perception do not count to refute a philosophy which recants process as a reality. Does it?

I am growing weary of telling you that a singularity of God is unchangeable whilst what is perceived to change is an illusion = there is no real change.

Nothing really changes since only God exists. What God perceives to exist is ultimately irrelevant since it is illusory. At the end of the day, ONLY God exists regardless of what God perceives.

RussDill

17th February 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Processes" seen within perception do not count to refute a philosophy which recants process as a reality. Does it?

I am growing weary of telling you that a singularity of God is unchangeable whilst what is perceived to change is an illusion = there is no real change.

Nothing more than hand waving, you have explained nothing.

Nothing really changes since only God exists. What God perceives to exist is ultimately irrelevant since it is illusory. At the end of the day, ONLY God exists regardless of what God perceives.

You *still* apply logic differently to a universe with god, as a universe without god. If a universe without god exists, it does not change as a universe, because as a universe, time does not exist. Only within the universe do these "concepts" exist. Same with your mind/god thing.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
Nothing more than hand waving, you have explained nothing.

Brainwashing, at its worse, turns the individual into what can only be described as an intellectual rat, who will parrot any nonsense to defend his/her core beliefs.
This sort of statement, by you, is indicative of what I am talking about. It just completely evades what I have discussed with others, thus avoiding the necessity to deal with it.
You haven't quite sunk to the intellectual abyss exhibited by your friend Scribble yet, but please be aware that it's a slippery slope you're treading.

You *still* apply logic differently to a universe with god, as a universe without god. If a universe without god exists, it does not change as a universe, because as a universe, time does not exist. Only within the universe do these "concepts" exist. Same with your mind/god thing.
What??
Time only exists as a concept, experienced by awareness within the universe? No kiddin!!!

RussDill

18th February 2004, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Brainwashing, at its worse, turns the individual into what can only be described as an intellectual rat, who will parrot any nonsense to defend his/her core beliefs.
This sort of statement, by you, is indicative of what I am talking about. It just completely evades what I have discussed with others, thus avoiding the necessity to deal with it.
You haven't quite sunk to the intellectual abyss exhibited by your friend Scribble yet, but please be aware that it's a slippery slope you're treading.

Insults, that responds perfectly and gains you all sorts of credibility. Sorry, no, throughout this thread, you have simply repeated your clearly illogical claims hoping that it would make them come true rather than responding to what people say.

What??
Time only exists as a concept, experienced by awareness within the universe? No kiddin!!!

I never said anything about awareness, note how you are putting "experience" and "awareness" on special pedistals when there is no reason to put them there.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
Insults,

Insults? You've gotten off lightly George. Think of it more as another plea to up the quality of your responses. Get off that slope before you hit rock bottom.

Talk reason. Use it to support what you say. And say relevant things only.

Filippo Lippi

18th February 2004, 07:13 AM

Where's that irony meter?

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi
Where's that irony meter?
Here's another parrot, using the same old tired cliche's because he doesn't have the brains to contribute towards a rational discussion. Bog off bozo, and hide your meter in a place where the sun don't shine.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 07:19 AM

In case you're all wondering - yes I am cheesed off.

Filippo Lippi

18th February 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Here's another parrot, using the same old tired cliche's because he doesn't have the brains to contribute towards a rational discussion. Bog off bozo, and hide your meter in a place where the sun don't shine.

Now I understand, you must have broken each and every one.

Dancing David

18th February 2004, 08:41 AM

Lifegazer:

I will repeat it the last time, since I doubt we can reach accord on this, you have created a duality.

Reality/Illusion

I would say that the solution in monism is to say that the illusion is also part and parcel of god, and that the fact that the percieved part of god changes doesn't matter.

If god wants to change then god changes I don't understand why god must be unchanging, that is not a needful thing.

On the gnostic issue, you have created a dualism very similar to the gnostic tradition. gnosticism is a revealation based upon the fact that the god of jesus bears little resemblance to the god of the OT.

Therefore some hypotheized that the god in the OT is not the god jesus.

Also your stance that god's perceptions are part of god, yet somehow not part of god just smacks of gnosticism.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Lifegazer:

I will repeat it the last time, since I doubt we can reach accord on this, you have created a duality.

Well, there's no reasoning here - just assertion. There can be no real duality of existence between The Mind of God and the illusory things existing within that Mind's awareness.
There is just the single existence of that Mind. The non-existent things seen within awareness do not present another reality of existence. They present an illusion of another existence. The duality is an illusion. There is only God.

To have any credible argument here, relating to a duality, you have to present 'something' that has a separate yet real existence to God. You cannot do that. There is no duality.

Atlas

18th February 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
In case you're all wondering - yes I am cheesed off. Lifegazer,

Ok, in an effort to cut the cheese (maybe I didn't say that very well), my own interest pertains to perspectives on soul. Permit me, as I often do, to condense your descriptions so that I may ask my question about Timeless Existence (even though I risk sending you off on another thread).

You postulate a deity with the boundless energy of Pure Idea or Big Idea, an aspect of which is the Dream of Reality, within which we are the players on the dream stage. Like any players in dreams we appear to have consciousness, which is an immaterial aspect of an objective reality we perceive this dream to be.

Within the layers of immateriality I see...

1) Volition (my name for your Pure Idea of God)
2) Volition's Awareness (The knowledge of Self and all indivisible aspects of Volition's immateriality like Time and Space
3) Volition's Dream (The Reality of the "Material" universe including me - and indivisible from Volition)

Now to the immateriality of Me...
Is it made up of similar layers and how do they fit into the big picture.

I propose that in your philosophy you will have constructs of the immateriality of Self - perhaps composed of "solids" and "fluids"
Example:

1) The Solid Immaterial aspect of Self is my body (This is the part that cuts the cheese)
2) First Fluid is Awareness - (Awareness knows there is a Solid Self and there are other immaterial things like cheese that also appear solid.
3) Second Fluid is Consciousness - (This is the part that directs Self and Awareness toward actions like cutting of cheeses
4) Third Fluid is Dream - ( The part that creates sub realities where cheeses appear to me as Green Bay Packers

Other fluids may be named unconscious, subconscious, causalbody, astralbody etc.... I guess I'm asking you lifegazer.

Now we get to Soul - In your philosophy how does this immaterial and ethereal essence participate in the Pure Idea and the Self. Does it act as a boundless capsule inside the littlesingularity of the body and containing all the "Fluids"? Is it an immateriality that is more eternal than the solid Self and closer to the frequency of pureness and the Pure Idea. If so, when it floats free back into the boundlessness of it's nature will it be in a place where it can have all the cheese it ever wanted? Will it remember? If it is punished will it be in a fondue forever. Do you take your understandings of the soul from the religious thoughts of others or is there a scientific, common man, and simple explanation.

I hope this cheeses you back on. It's 'food' for thought.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 11:17 AM

Atlas, your cheese post is full of holes.
Sorry, I can't stop cracking duff jokes today.
Err... I'm sure there's a few points worth answering in there. First, I have to work them out. LOL
You're a crazy dude Atlas.

Atlas

18th February 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're a crazy dude Atlas.
I'm Crazy!!??!! :roll:

Upchurch

18th February 2004, 01:32 PM

uh-oh. Puns. I gouda done without it coming to puns.

Dancing David

18th February 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well, there's no reasoning here - just assertion. There can be no real duality of existence between The Mind of God and the illusory things existing within that Mind's awareness.
There is just the single existence of that Mind. The non-existent things seen within awareness do not present another reality of existence. They present an illusion of another existence. The duality is an illusion. There is only God.

To have any credible argument here, relating to a duality, you have to present 'something' that has a separate yet real existence to God. You cannot do that. There is no duality.

Mon frer,
the duality is in that they are both a part of god and that one is real and the other imaginary. they are both parts of god and bot real, I think the phrase would be static and intansient if they are both part of god.

There can be no real duality of existence between The Mind of God and the illusory things existing within that Mind's awareness.

There it is again the duality, by calling them illsuiory you make the duality. they are both real does away with the duality.

Is god hallucinationg?

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
Lifegazer,

Ok, in an effort to cut the cheese (maybe I didn't say that very well), my own interest pertains to perspectives on soul.

What are your base beliefs? It will benefit future discussions if I know what you are... be it an atheist, agnostic, christian, hippy, or lucifer himself.
I'm curious as to why you - who I intuitively assumed (shame on me for assuming anything) to be an atheist - would have an interest in the 'soul'. Do you acknowledge the existence of life apart from the matter it is housed within?
I'm genuinely interested and will not condemn you for your base beliefs. However, perhaps I will force you to question them. Scared?

Do you take your understandings of the soul from the religious thoughts of others or is there a scientific, common man, and simple explanation.

I hope this cheeses you back on. It's 'food' for thought.
I wish you'd ask me straight-forward questions. Your post gave me a headache, trying to figure out the precise meanings within it.

Let me tell you a few things about my philosophy which may - or which may not - answer your questions about the "soul" of existence...

I reason that God is existence. God is not form. God is without form or body. God is without volume or position. God is without solidity.
Hence, I can only relate the existence of God to spirit.
As humans, we have been duped into thinking that existence has extension and position. But it doesn't. Even quantum-mechanics tells us this.
Existence is without definite position and extension. Indeed, particles exist as their whole potential until observed. A single electron, for example, will affect receptors on two paths until an observer takes a gander (observes).

No thing exists as a definite entity in space and time. And certainly not God itself, the essence of those things.

God is existence but has no body. God has soul or spirit. God cannot be embraced with a hug. But God can be embraced by love and realisation. Only feelings and thoughts can embrace the reality of [the intangible] God.

What of "us" then? Who are we?
I have told you already. We are God, lost within the dream, as ordained. God loses absolute self-awareness and voluntarily throws itself into relative self-awareness.

"We" do not exist. Yet [i]"I" do.
In other words, we are God, lost to itself within a dream of the world.

When Jesus said that "I and the father are one", he was really saying that only God exists.

uruk

18th February 2004, 04:30 PM

"Processes" seen within perception do not count to refute a philosophy which recants process as a reality. Does it?

Translation: It is so because I say it is so.

Sorry does'nt cut it around here.

There is proceses involved in god's imagining this existance. It Does not matter wether this existance is real or not, god is imagining it. Therefore god is "doing" something:"doing" something means there is change in god.

You just said a few post back:

Now, if you want to ask me how God creates a whole realm of imaginary things within a singularity of awareness, then I won't be able to answer. Only God itself (not lifegazer) can answer that.

Translation: I don't know how god can change without changing.

Looks like dogma, smells like dogma, tastes like dogma. Must be dogma

Atlas

18th February 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What are your base beliefs? It will benefit future discussions if I know what you are... be it an atheist, agnostic, christian, hippy, or lucifer himself. I am myself. Half God, Half Man, Half Wit.
I'm curious as to why you - who I intuitively assumed (shame on me for assuming anything) to be an atheist - would have an interest in the 'soul'. Do you acknowledge the existence of life apart from the matter it is housed within?
I acknowledge -- in the skeptic's sense of that word.
I'm genuinely interested and will not condemn you for your base beliefs. However, perhaps I will force you to question them. Scared?On my last night as a Christian, I swore I could hear demons laughing. I was scared then. If you're not one of them, I can probably handle the fear of introspection.Your post gave me a headache, trying to figure out the precise meanings within it.

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi
Where's that irony meter?

Here is what I can tell you lifegazer. I have the soul of a poet, I just don't have the skill. I could be an atheist, if only I would try harder. For me, true objective reality is a bleak airless moonscape. I breathe life into it by exerting my power of subjective reality.

Originally posted by Me - Atlas
This perspective on soul I call, Transcendent Soul. It arises out our awareness of objective reality through a process of: appreciation. It takes in the sunsets and the night sky and expresses itself in the poetry, art, and all the great works of man. It is unquestionably real in it's feelings and it's acts. It contemplates the universe and it's own place therein in self referential celebration. It is the child of human language and feelings and the father of science, philosophy, art and religion.

Where I breathe life into objective reality, you take out it's substance. For you it is an essentially illusion. The mystics agree that it is an illusion. And, in a way, I can agree as well. Since I cannot remove all aspects of my own subjective apprehension of objective reality, what I do experience is a delusion of it. I try to make it a good one. And science both grounds and lofts my delusion.

My appreciation of reality still allows me many precious feelings. Those feelings of Oneness, awe and wonder at it all. I do not run from these feelings. I do not think true atheists linger on them as I do. But I call them what they are: Feelings. It is feelings, more than thought, that get us through our day. They are the truer texture. Rational thought is dry. Yes it is also wonderful, but when you have an elevating insight, it's because you feel elevated. The thought was the mechanism to provide the feeling. So for delight, you return. I often try through spoken and written words to elicit the feelings of loftiness. That is why you catch me playing with words, their power to elicit all kinds of feelings, besides the ideas they represent.

I'll quit now because it's no fun talking about the lofty without reaching it.

I probably needed a cheesy joke or something.

Hey, if you decide whether "We are God" means we have soul or we are souls, or whatever... - let me know.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by uruk
Sorry does'nt cut it around here.

Apparently, the only thing which will "cut it around here" - as far as God is concerned - is a miracle. How ironic, considering we are trying to decipher existence using sober rationale alone.

There is proceses involved in god's imagining this existance.

Not physical processes. Remember that physical (relative) reality is an effect of this God. Not its cause.

It Does not matter wether this existance is real or not, god is imagining it. Therefore god is "doing" something:"doing" something means there is change in god.

There is a change in what God is doing. There is not a change in what God is. You've failed to note this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
What God is doing does not alter God's actual essence.

It's like saying, for example, that you are the same entity whether you are in the kitchen or the bedroom. You might do different things in different rooms, but you are still you. Not quite a perfect analogy, but sufficient to show that God's identity is not bound up in what God actually does, but in what God is as a whole, potentially.

Translation: I don't know how god can change without changing.

Incorrect. Actual translation: I don't know how God creates specific sensations upon its own awareness. I just know that God does. The awareness of abstract sensation, by an entity, must be self-imposed by default. The universe knows nothing of abstract experience, least of all how to impose it upon specific objects.

Looks like dogma, smells like dogma, tastes like dogma. Must be dogma
Materialism is the biggest enemy of mankind in the 21st century.
It's the biggest dogma of our time. In the West, anyway.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
I am myself. Half God, Half Man, Half Wit.

Never do things by half.

I acknowledge -- in the skeptic's sense of that word.

Then I embrace you as a true seeker or even as a true skeptic. So many of these people here are just anti-God but won't openly admit it.

On my last night as a Christian, I swore I could hear demons laughing. I was scared then. If you're not one of them, I can probably handle the fear of introspection.

I despair for religious people. The fanatical sort. They do not have minds of their own. I know, however, that you do. There's hope for you, whatever the truth may be.

Here is what I can tell you lifegazer. I have the soul of a poet,

I know that.

I just don't have the skill.

You had enough skill to convince me otherwise.

I do not think true atheists linger on them as I do. But I call them what they are: Feelings. It is feelings, more than thought, that get us through our day. They are the truer texture. Rational thought is dry. Yes it is also wonderful, but when you have an elevating insight, it's because you feel elevated.

Study Hitler. You don't even need to understand German. Just watch him. Watch his passion. Watch his expression. Watch his tone. The man was a genius. The only thing lacking was a credible philosophy behind his feelings.
Feelings are worthless without sound reason. Indeed, feelings without sound reason are fatal.

I'll quit now because it's no fun talking about the lofty without reaching it.

Several people have reached the peak of expressing lofty feeling.
To do that without dry reason is either fatal or meaningless.

Hey, if you decide whether "We are God" means we have soul or we are souls, or whatever... - let me know.
God is intangible spirit and God is all that exists = 'we' have a soul/spirit (since we are God).

Atlas

18th February 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Study Hitler. You don't even need to understand German. Just watch him. Watch his passion. Watch his expression. Watch his tone. The man was a genius. The only thing lacking was a credible philosophy behind his feelings.
Yow! While this man could evoke feelings, it wasn't by his words so much as his own emotion and forceful histrionics. To say "The only thing lacking was a credible philosophy behind his feelings", misses his depravity and the contempt he had for humanity. You meant something else than credible. Perhaps you meant: moral and ethical.

Feelings are worthless without sound reason. Indeed, feelings without sound reason are fatal. You miss Love and Art. I would say without feeling the human race and most animal species would die off.

Several people have reached the peak of expressing lofty feeling. To do that without dry reason is either fatal or meaningless.Filippo Lippi was giving you a hard time earlier. Have you ever seen a painting by the real Filippo Lippi or a Botticelli? Check out the Renaissance. While you are there look at Michaelangelo too. There is nothing meaningless in the expression of lofty feeling. Greig, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart - meaningless?

The Church employed some dry reason to come up with Transubstantiation. It's philosophical magic changed the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ. Aquinas reached back Aristotle for his argument on how God becomes the substance without changing the form of the bread and wine. It was an intellectual masterpiece. Not exactly meaninglessness, but most likely untrue.

Pythagoras was a Greek in opposition to the Platonic school. He knew there were more valuable things to be learned from Nature than in postulating the grand idea from which all else could be deduced. His rightful heirs are Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. These were men of reason - but they were inspired, and what's more they did the hard work necessary to craft their ideas with proof and further testable hypotheses.

Your ideas come from personal insights that seem true to you. No doubt they have been accompanied by feelings of truth. But you are playing at being Aquinas here - finding God in a piece of bread. Ultimately your ultimate reality will collapse because it offers nothing but a repainting of the theoretical theistic canvas. It is church stuff, reclaiming the same one God but this time bigger and righter than anyone ever thought of before.

For over a thousand years the church revealed a God from which all could be deduced. The world it deduced was much darker than the light it claimed. Don't make the same mistake. Start with the world around you. Use inductive reasoning. It builds on prior knowledge forming ever larger generalizations on proofs. It made the world brighter with electricity and medicine. You will too if your ideas prove out and have real world significance. Calling it all an illusion and just leaving it there without any moral, ethical or guiding life strategy is not helping.

If I suddenly seemed harsher here take some advice. Don't tell anyone to study Hitler. It undermines your message and will almost always offend the sensibilities of your reader.

uruk

18th February 2004, 09:50 PM

There is a change in what God is doing

But if god is "doing" something then god experiances time.
You were the one equating time with change.
I can't help it if you can't keep track of your definitions

RussDill

18th February 2004, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Insults? You've gotten off lightly George. Think of it more as another plea to up the quality of your responses. Get off that slope before you hit rock bottom.

I'm frightenend now...what if lifegazer gashes out and says I'm brainwashed, *and* I can't spell? I don't know how I would look at myself in the mirror.

Talk reason. Use it to support what you say. And say relevant things only.

Imagination is a process that a mind engages in. Physical/non-physical, doen't matter, it is still something the mind engages in. Otherwise, you would not need a mind for your reality, and an "imagined" (by your definition) universe would exist all on its own.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
Yow! While this man could evoke feelings, it wasn't by his words so much as his own emotion and forceful histrionics. To say "The only thing lacking was a credible philosophy behind his feelings", misses his depravity and the contempt he had for humanity. You meant something else than credible. Perhaps you meant: moral and ethical.

Of course. I was merely pointing out that an unsound philosophy, passionately embraced and acted upon, is a dangerous thing. The emotions must be serfs to reason. Yet so many of us allow our reason become slave to our emotions.

You miss Love and Art. I would say without feeling the human race and most animal species would die off.

Filippo Lippi was giving you a hard time earlier. Have you ever seen a painting by the real Filippo Lippi or a Botticelli? Check out the Renaissance. While you are there look at Michaelangelo too. There is nothing meaningless in the expression of lofty feeling. Greig, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart - meaningless?

Art is wonderful. The point here though, is that philosophy has to keep emotion at arm's length lest she take control of our reason.
This is imperative.

Calling it all an illusion and just leaving it there without any moral, ethical or guiding life strategy is not helping.

I agree. But what's the point in discussing such things with people who cannot accept the "dry reason" of God's solitary existence? Who would I be talking to?

If I suddenly seemed harsher here take some advice. Don't tell anyone to study Hitler. It undermines your message and will almost always offend the sensibilities of your reader.
Hitler is an example of what a man can be when reason serves the emotions (of hatred and greed in Hitler's case). I used him to show you that reason is the greater part of man's soul.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by uruk

But if god is "doing" something then god experiances time.
You were the one equating time with change.
I can't help it if you can't keep track of your definitions
God never changes. Whatever thoughts God has do not change God. God is a being without form, position, or motion. How could such a being change?

wraith

19th February 2004, 04:56 AM

Time exists only when it is being perceived by consciousness. Consciousness can only perceive Time if it can perceive change. So Time = Change. Hence, if there was no consciousness, then there is no Time and no change.

Yet, without Time and awareness, there still had to be "something". Can absolute nothingness be even imagined?
Existence has to be boundless would it not? There can't be an existence surrounded by absolute nothingness. At least, I can't imagine such a scenario.

I agree that the mind doesn't change but the contents within the mind does (Maximum perceived benefit). If this wasn't the case, then patterns in our behaviour couldn't arise. eg stopping at a red light.

However, the thing that I have a problem with is that of the nature of God. If we as a human race are the one god, then conformity is where we're heading. Having sex with your girl is equivalent to jerking off or rooting yourself.

All I can say is F**K THAT!

Tricky

19th February 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

God never changes. Whatever thoughts God has do not change God. God is a being without form, position, or motion. How could such a being change?
No form, position or motion? That sounds remarkably like the description of non-existence. What does God have? How does it work without form, position or motion? How do you know?

Wudang

19th February 2004, 09:01 AM

Editted - never mind, misread.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
No form, position or motion? That sounds remarkably like the description of non-existence. What does God have? How does it work without form, position or motion? How do you know?
I've reasoned that God is existence - indivisibly singular and boundless, therefore existing at singularity, without beginning or end = no position and no form = no (real) motion possible.

Distance doesn't exist. Neither does time. Yet existence does.
Welcome to the realm of the spirit that is God.

Upchurch

19th February 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I've reasoned that God is existenceI'd just like to reiterate that reason alone does not determine truth.

Atlas

19th February 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'd just like to reiterate that reason alone does not determine truth.

I'd just like to reiterate that reason alone does not determine truth.

I'd just like to reiterate that reason alone does not determine truth.

In a much earlier post you alerted us to the fact that multiple iterations help to determine truth in certain threads. I think thats worth mentioning again.

I think thats worth mentioning again.

Does it feel like it's working? :nope:

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'd just like to reiterate that reason alone does not determine truth.
What sort of a comment is this?

Atlas

19th February 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
God is intangible spirit and God is all that exists = 'we' have a soul/spirit (since we are God).
Obviously the apparent world exists in the sea of time. That's why we change.

But the soul, isn't that more like God in it's intangibility? Does it operate as an unchanging aspect of ourselves uniting us to our unchanging ultimate reality and giving us insight into it?

Or does it acquire karma, sin, grace or experience through time? And if so, is it equivalent to the living body or self destined for the grave, which is but another illusion for we never were really alive? And since life is but an illusion of the unchanging reality are we, in the larger sense, even having this conversation? And if not, why do you carry on? What is to be gained? What have you gained so far? Am I asking too many questions - what's the limit in one post?

I'm still interested in this side of your story.

Atlas

19th February 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
I've reasoned that God is existence

Response posted by Upchurch
I'd just like to reiterate that reason alone does not determine truth.

Re Response posted by lifegazer
What sort of a comment is this? I'd call it a clue.

uruk

19th February 2004, 11:11 AM

I've reasoned that God is existence - indivisibly singular and boundless, therefore existing at singularity, without beginning or end = no position and no form = no (real) motion possible.

I agree with tricky, this sounds like a discriptin of non-existance.
Thanks Lifegazer for proving that god does not exist.:D

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
I'd call it a clue.
A clue to what?
What possible reason can be used to denounce reason itself?

Dancing David

19th February 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What sort of a comment is this?

It is a statement that reason is not the sole determinant of truth.

Upchurch

19th February 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

A clue to what?
What possible reason can be used to denounce reason itself? Read it again. I said that reason alone does not determine truth. I said nothing denouncing reason.

Reason is necessary for discovering truth, but it is not, itself, sufficient. Your claim above seems to imply that it is.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by uruk

I agree with tricky, this sounds like a discriptin of non-existance.
Thanks Lifegazer for proving that god does not exist.:D
Get your head out of the fishbowl squire.

The concepts of distance, position, time, form, only exist within awareness... within the perception of the relations existing between things seen therein.
But in truth, no thing possesses definite form or definite position in spacetime. Ask your local quantum-physicist - he'll back me up.

The realm of definite things with definite form and definite location, is a realm of illusion, seen by a Mind of the eternal spirit that we know as God.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Read it again. I said that reason alone does not determine truth. I said nothing denouncing reason.

Reason is necessary for discovering truth, but it is not, itself, sufficient. Your claim above seems to imply that it is.
What are you suggesting? That the truth of God cannot be accepted by reason alone and that we need to observe God under a microscope before such a truth can be accepted?

Upchurch

19th February 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

What are you suggesting? That the truth of God cannot be accepted by reason alone and that we need to observe God under a microscope before such a truth can be accepted? Well, yes, actually. If we are to accept "the truth of God" as objective truth, it is required that there be some sort of observation that fits no other set of rationality.

Reason alone can be used to arrive at any conclusion dependent on the premises the reasoning is based on. I could use reason to show the Smurfs rule the universe, as long as you don't make me prove the premises of that reasoning. Likewise, you've used reason to show that the universe is God, but you do not prove the premises your reasoning is based on.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, yes, actually. If we are to accept "the truth of God" as objective truth, it is required that there be some sort of observation that fits no other set of rationality.

A burning bush, perhaps? Or a parting of the Atlantic ocean? Or Scribble posting something worthwhile? Just what sort of observation would suffice to confirm the reasoning of God's existence?

God is the whole - God is absolute existence. God resides everywhere and nowhere, everywhen and nowhen. God is without form. God is without beginning or end. Pray tell, where in spacetime might we expect to see God?

Reason alone can be used to arrive at any conclusion dependent on the premises the reasoning is based on.

My reason begins with a premise that is absolutely true:-
Something is having the abstract experience of being 'me'. Even if 'i' am just an illusion, something is definitely having this experience.
My philosophy starts thus, and is founded upon a true premise.

I could use reason to show the Smurfs rule the universe, as long as you don't make me prove the premises of that reasoning.

Which of course I would.

Likewise, you've used reason to show that the universe is God, but you do not prove the premises your reasoning is based on.
We've been down this road before. Somehow, you denied that the premise was true. :hit:

Edit: Will one of the moderators delete this post please. I've posted the same thing twice.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 12:23 PM

Tricky

19th February 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by uruk
I agree with tricky, this sounds like a discriptin of non-existance.
Thanks Lifegazer for proving that god does not exist.:D
Well, he didn't exactly prove God does not exist, only that God as he as defined him does not exist. To accept this as proof of God's nonexistance, you would have to accept Lifegazer's assumptions about God's formlessness, placelessness and motionless state. So far, I haven't seen a single one of Lifegazer's assumptions that was worth the electrons it took to show it on my screen, so I'm going to refrain from calling it "proof".

Upchurch

19th February 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

A burning bush, perhaps? Or a parting of the Atlantic ocean? Or Scribble posting something worthwhile?Those would be lovely. (Sorry, Scrib ;)) As long as there was no other natural explination, of course. BTW, did you know that bushes spontaneously catching on fire is a natural phenomenon? I think there was a thread about it a while ago.
My reason begins with a premise that is absolutely true:-
Something is having the abstract experience of being 'me'. Even if 'i' am just an illusion, something is definitely having this experience.
My philosophy starts thus, and is founded upon a true premise.If only that were your only premise. Sadly, it is not (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32766).

edited to add: Forgot to mention the logical inconsistancies in the reason itself.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 02:23 PM

This thread proposes that the existence (of whatever) precedes the changes which began to be perceived within that existence.
Change is an occurance. It happens to something. So, time (being the equivalent of change), is happening to whatever exists before changes are perceived within it.
Ultimately, since existence is the source of her own changes/time, we must conclude that there is a timeless existence.

Very reasonable argument, imo.
Are there any final questions before I collect my million dollars? lol

Tricky

19th February 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Are there any final questions before I collect my million dollars? lol
Yeah. What did you put on the "Million Dollar Challenge" application form where it asks what powers or abilities are to be demonstrated? (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yeah. What did you put on the "Million Dollar Challenge" application form where it asks what powers or abilities are to be demonstrated? (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)
How crazy that a rational argument can never - according to Randi - suffice to prove the existence of God.

uruk

19th February 2004, 03:11 PM

Well, he didn't exactly prove God does not exist, only that God as he as defined him does not exist. To accept this as proof of God's nonexistance, you would have to accept Lifegazer's assumptions about God's formlessness, placelessness and motionless state. So far, I haven't seen a single one of Lifegazer's assumptions that was worth the electrons it took to show it on my screen, so I'm going to refrain from calling it "proof".

proof , yet again, that sarcasm does not transfer to print.

it was just nice to see lifgazer resort to spewing dogma again.
Did anybody notice that he finally admitted to not knowing something about his "philosophy?"

God is the whole - God is absolute existence. God resides everywhere and nowhere, everywhen and nowhen. God is without form. God is without beginning or end. Pray tell, where in spacetime might we expect to see God?

poetic gobbledy gook. god exists yet doesn't exist. absolutly meaningless.

this reminds me of a saying: If you can't dazzel them diamonds; baffel them with bullsh*t.

lifegazer

19th February 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by uruk
proof , yet again, that sarcasm does not transfer to print.

it was just nice to see lifgazer resort to spewing dogma again.
Did anybody notice that he finally admitted to not knowing something about his "philosophy?"

Really? Can I change my mind?

poetic gobbledy gook. god exists yet doesn't exist. absolutly meaningless.

No squire. God exists but not as a definite body within definite spacetime. QM supports this. Existence is nowhere to be found, except within the mind and as the mind.

this reminds me of a saying: If you can't dazzel them diamonds; baffel them with bullsh*t.
No pearls for the piggies, I'm afraid.

uruk

19th February 2004, 03:21 PM

But in truth, no thing possesses definite form or definite position in spacetime. Ask your local quantum-physicist - he'll back me up.
They may not posse definite form or position but they do posses form and position none the less.
A QM physicist would remind you that the uncertaity principal referes to measurements. The system has those properties but when you try to measure one property to a precice measurement you affect the other properties so that they become unknown. we can know the precise position of a particle with 99.9% accuracy (you can never approach 100%) but you affect the velocity, energy level,..etc. so that those properties become unknown. Philosophicaly speaking: observing the system changes the system.

edited to correct a sentence

uruk

19th February 2004, 03:23 PM

No pearls for the piggies, I'm afraid.

You have to have pearls first.

Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

uruk

19th February 2004, 03:43 PM

God exists but not as a definite body within definite spacetime. QM supports this. Existence is nowhere to be found, except within the mind and as the mind.

more poetic polemia.
QM does not support or deny god. It pleads the fifth.

RussDill

19th February 2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The concepts of distance, position, time, form, only exist within awareness... within the perception of the relations existing between things seen therein.

In your philosophy, the only kind of existence there is is awareness (of the mind of god), correct? So you can easily replace that sentance. "The concepts of distance, position, time, form, only exist within existence".

You seem somehow convinced that if distance is real within existence, then somehow it is real is some realm outside existence, same with time. But then rationalize the problem away by saying that it is only real within awareness...which by your philosophy, is existence.

But in truth, no thing possesses definite form or definite position in spacetime. Ask your local quantum-physicist - he'll back me up.

Your local quantum physicists already told you that you haven't a clue when it comes to QM and it's implications. So sorry, no, no QM physicist would back you up.

The realm of definite things with definite form and definite location, is a realm of illusion, seen by a Mind of the eternal spirit that we know as God.

There is no realm of definite location, ever, even in some illusionary world. (definite form, things, etc, are all a result of the definite location thing, not seperate "problems").