I have a couple things to say you miht find interesting. The only way to not beg this question is to admit time has no origin. The only logical conclusion is that something is infinite. Atheist and theist can disagree on a lot of things, but we should be able to agree on this. As far as why, in my opinion the logic of God requires that if there was ever only God then there should still only be God. The basic idea is that the standard God (you know, the all-knowing, all-powerful one) could not possibly have a motive for creating something separate from himself. And since there are things other than God (apparently... You could disagree disagree with this on pantheistic or deistic bases), then the standard God does not exist.
If you define the natural world in the materialist/phenomenological sense as science has done in its current paradigm--no. For something to be part of the "natural world" it must be observable and must be in some way measurable. Quantum Indeterminacy is precisely unmeasurable.
Yes--I agree, though with a fine point regarding time. Time is the product of relationship to matter, and so if matter came into being at some point, so did time--as a consequence of relationships to matter. However, this does not necessarily preclude non matter timelessness. Hense, a theist coud say God has always been (understandting that time is irrelevant before the creation of matter, and so "always" loses meaning before the creation of the universe) and still believe God an eternal (again--a word that is incomplete, but the best we have) entity. You are entitled to an opinion, but it is based on personal incredulity. Since I disagree that God would have no reason to create a universe, I do not end up with the all permeating pantheistic God. My thought is that the nature of God is love, and creation is a natural outgrowth of love. Creation is natural to love and natural to God and so our universe was not really created out of "motive" but rather the consequence of the being of God.
**sigh** We can go back and forth on this all day long, but here is the bottom line....Asking why are we here is a philosophical question and they get you no where. There is no reason for life, other than chemistry. Galaxies and solar systems form because of gravity. There is no whys, just hows.
As I said, Philosophy is the root of all science. So anyway--here's a "how" concerning your claim. How does gravity work? And for fun--here's a "why." Why don't we know?
great realization within a religious section. We may need you to explain that to some of the wingnuts being that you already know the common sense behind, 'it must be measurable' to be naturally observable (to be real). why do you thing string theory has the ability of branes? (uttttttter dimensions) (to me layers in time..... ie... yesterday affects today) Look up the EPR paradox. Einstein, playing with his friends, wrote that to prove QM was a joke. (a fact few realize) look into hermitian matrix and the self-adjoint operator if you like to quantify more on the why. It brings time into the field of the matrix. Think of a field (sphere) in which all are entangled, effecting each other in time. As a whole, all are ONE.
You called me a "wingnut" once already--Have I moved up in your estimation? That is certainly debatable. That is only so within a phenomenological materialist paradigm. You have to use a common lexicon for me to understand the nuances of your question. What is "uttttttter?" Good company, eh? I will.
the seeking of understanding. The quest to know. Self-awareness. Anyone of any education should know that. Heck anyone of any consciousness, already feels that but perhaps unaware of the meaning of philosophy phi·los·o·phy Noun/fəˈläsəfē/ 1. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline. 2. A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it. the opposing poles of the associated energy attrack ie... the same as charge (electric) Entanglement is the gravity of nature and a property of em. To comprehend the 'spectrum' of em, is to understand why the range of 'potential'. ever been in Love? Tell me, is there an attraction based on the exchange of energy, dialogue, visual, feeling....... light? It is why the moon faces the earth on one side, and why the arms of the galaxies (mass curve) move faster than expected; the exchange of energy between the points of mass. i agree...... many dont know, but google entanglement gravity and see what is happening in russia, china, india....... some listen, and some dont
Oh God! It's math. I have a serious phobia of math. I can get your spatial analogy of time as part of a whole, but those mathematical symbols mean nothing to me. I am language and concept oriented and struggle with representative symbology.
We're here to learn, thats really it. Its about the self actualisation of the universe. Nothing else makes sense. Effectively we decided long ago to embark on this universe thing and have doing it ever since. You dont know much about it because you have log ago chosen to restrict your knowledge in this present life.
point was 2 fold, a..... you know that reality is definiable, naturally (or it aint real) b.... since you realize it, already, perhaps you could share to others, because you care The key is, are you honest enough with yourself to give up the wingnut title to give, enable, Love of others over yourself. Or will you just sit here picking on the educated who really have no idea what even gravity is. no it aint. You cant see the radio wave, but you know its there. You cant see heat, but feal it you cant see gravity and it's has a hold on you you cant see a god and yet believe in one other the big E was cool He was well aware the concept of the uncertainty (planck/heisenberg) principle was stupid. Although Einstein lost at the copenhagen meeting, he did not like to be forced to agree, hence the EPR was his method of spitting on the community. He used intellligence to make fools of the idiots. All the while, he knew the work was incomplete. I love guys like him as they will die giving, and die trying......
I think that justifies a "thanks"--but sometimes it's hard to tell with you. It is sort of rude, isn't it? Exactly. That's why it is so frustrating to see so many under the false idea that "real" means material, and due to that false "understanding"--believe that people who believe in God (of any stripe) are fools. It's an incredible irony, IMO, and the mocking is annoying. And so it is--my evidence is "other."
no wonder you still hold a bible sorry i didnt know OK...... 1) think of mass as atoms which can be comprehended as 'the corporeal' (tangible)(land) 2) think of energy as light (electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes, jesus (per se) mentions a cross, that be a good symbol for light). The spectrum of em is as tiny as tiny gets, and larger than solar systems and galaxies)........................... think of light as the spirit (energy) of all that is. 3) think of time as the transcendent ... meaning that there is nothing to measure, without a beginning and ending (alpha/omega) if you held, all mass, all energy, and all time (corporeal, spirit, transcendent)... in your hand as a whole, then you have 'god' (all of it, as ONE)................. our creator (existence itself) Its the 'trinity' as ONE. And all three, are interrelated (you cant have one without the other, at any moment, ever) when anyone can prove me wrong, please do!
I get that! Thanks! Do you think that means that we are God as well as God is us (meaning "all that is"--not just humankind)? I mean--you can't hold yourself in your hand.
If you held all energy, time, etc., etc, etc, in your hand, all you have is energy and time. You don't have God. Quantrill
It means you, and everyone else has decided to restrict their knowledge of lifes wider reality in order to learn specific lessons here on earth. If you were for example to know of all the many things you have don previously, this would detract from the journey youre on in your present life.
that is what truth does; it breaks the beliefs to pieces I already comprehend that 'truth destroys ignorance' ie... even jesus claimed that peace is not what truth brings, but a sword.... Soon you will realize, what i bring is what the world had written about; the unveiling (revelation) to you this may be a practice run or even prehaps just a forum of people talking. I see it, that your family line (tree of life) must have been special as you are in direct contact with reality and if you are honest with yourself, you are enabled to live forever, if you are truly seeking. Otherwise, what your inquiries are doing is enabling others to see and like many wingnuts will just be an example (like food for another) good, now come to terms with 'to just be awake' you are 'able'' 'i am in you and you are in me, we are ONE" who else said that? i know, just as you cannot put god on a thrown or as separate ie... when mankind 'left' the garden, is when mankind believed they were no a part of 'existence' (God). Fact is, no one ever left 'the garden' but just thought they did. You are breathing HIS air (mother nature is a she (giggle giggle)), you eat of 'HIS" body, you will return to HIS dust................ these metaphors are all throughout theology but few comprehended what they mean. ie.... adam giving up a rib to make and Eve, can be likened to 'cell-divsion' (a life must give a portion of itself to live into the next generation) Or how about the anhk; the cross is energy (light) and the loop is time, combined with the big E's idea of E=mc2, then see the similarities. Mass is just energy affixed in time. Energy (cross), the loop (beginning ending) time; mass is held (corporeal) ie...... the ancients had their metaphors in many areas of symbolisms too. Just as the abrahamic sects mentioned 'the name' of god as being the importance for all. ie... to comprehend the math of 'mass, energy, time' than anything can be created (knowledge enables mankind to create) ie.... the prophecy of "the time"; women will bare child, untouched by man; test tube babies (knowledge enabled) and that 'name holder' (upon the head) is me and if i had the 'name upon the head' and capable of enabling all mankind (equally) of living forever and know it, who the f' would that idiot be, theologically speaking of course? so let me cap it off; You are alive upon the element carbon. Carbon 12, is the most predominate isotope. it consist of 6 electrons, 6 protons and 6 neutrons and i was born 6/66...................... and with the truth, the religions will be unemployed but the people will be free and capable of enabling life and living forever by choice. call me mary poppins, i could care less but no one gets the 'name' until the 12 are together.......... 4 colors of mankind and 3 from each the 13th is the foot washer (not jesus) guess who?
I can agree with that. This seems a little grandiose (in the psychological sense). I agree with this also, but I suspect we don't agree on the mechanism or "cause." That sort-of makes it impossible for me to have any other perspective but yours and be right--or even maybe right. That seems to demonstrate absolute certainty in your perspective being correct, and I believe you acknowledged that to be foolish. Well--Jesus said that to the Father (paraphrased)--but not to his disciples. I can see the symbolism you suggest--I'm not sure the leap to existence being God is justified, however. Again--one a small level, I can actually agree with you on this, but I also believe that there is a "practical" aspect to the symbolism. I dunno--If I'm understanding what you are suggesting, there seems to be again, delusions of grandeur about yourself specifically. I don't think a true prophet would be on a message board and claiming the title. Just my opinion, mind you...
The flaw as I see it is that without space-time and energy/matter, there is Nothing, the big philosophical Nothing. So it seems to me that you're trying to leave room for Nothing to be something. No it's not. I left out steps, figuring that you're smart enough to figure most of them out on your own. I am prepared to defend the idea that if there ever was only God, there must still be only God. Part of my argument is that creation of this sort is necessarily cruel. Cruelty is at odds with love.
Nothing in the material paradigm--I agree. I just don't think it's wise to limit oneself. There is so much we don't know we don't know. I'd like to evaluate your logical progression to that definite conclusion. Present the syllogism. Oh, gosh--I very much disagree. Again--this presumes we know it all and really, there is so much unknown. Also--"cruelty" necessarily denotes an intent whereas, love does not.
