Religion II

[Greyfox]

Light - having a discussion about time prior to the Big Bang is not subscribing to a theory of non-time.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Light

Once again Boxcar is talking out of both sides of his mouth which is confusing to Actor, because Boxcar is not that well versed in the metaphysical.

I actually agree with Boxcar in that time does not exist after death. His inconsistency is to say it exists in this life. That is also not true. The only thing that exists in this lifetime as far as time is the illusion of time created by our brains to organize the distance between events. Our physical brain operates on clock time which is man made and not real.

This is not a philosophy. Many scientists now subscribe to the theory of non time. That the past, present and future exists simultaneously. There is only the NOW.

To explain this, consider a "Pop up Book". The entire story is there to see in the same moment, past present and future. If you read the book in paper form, time seems to elapse because you are only recieving the story in bits and pieces to your mind which gives the illusion that time is passing by as you read the story. That is only happening in your little mind. In actuality the whole story is already there. It is only your slow speed of processing the information that gives you the illusion of time.

Another example is from Alan Watts:

Supposing I’m looking through a narrow slit in a fence and a snake goes by. I’ve never seen a snake before and this is mysterious. And I see—through the slit in the fence—first the snake’s head, then I see a long trailing body, and then, finally, the tail. I say, “Well, that was interesting!” Then the snake turns ’round and goes back. And again I see first the head, and then—after an interval—the tail. Now if I call the head one event and the tail another, it will seem to me that the event ‘head’ is the cause of the event ‘tail,’ and the tail is the effect. But if I look at the whole snake I will see a head-tailed snake and it would be simply absurd to say that the head of the snake is the cause of the tail, as if the snake came into being first the head and then the tail. The snake comes into being out of its egg as a head-tailed snake.
11:21

And so, in exactly the same way, all events are really one event. We’re looking—when we talk about different events—we’re looking at different sections, or parts, of one continuous happening. And therefore the idea of separate events which have to be linked by a mysterious process called cause and effect is completely unnecessary. But having thought that way we think of present events as being caused by past events and therefore we tend to regard ourselves as the puppets of the past, as driven along by something that is always behind us.

Time is the measurement of change. Parmenides and Zeno denied change was possible, and time illusory because being (something, the present) cannot come from non-being (nothing, the past or future). Aristotle allowed for the possibility of change and time by distinguishing not between being and non-being, but between actual being and potential being, i.e., act and potency.

Your posts in this thread are not lumped into one Now, but are separate entities. You have the potential to post a response to my current one. That potential really exists in you, only in need of being actualized by you and/or the factors that motivate you to do so. Act and potency then, do the heavy lifting that gets one to causation, the common sense experience of the world. (E.g., you state that "the only thing that exists in this lifetime as far as time is the illusion of time created by [= cause] our brains to [=effect] organize the distance between events.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It is logically necessary that what is eternal in its essence must be pure, perfect, absolute existence. If you're going to insist that the universe is eternal in its essence then the universe must be pure, perfect existence -- just like God. But whatever is perfect (such as God), cannot change; for the change would either be for the better or for the worse; and therefore the original state could not have been perfect. Yet, the universe is constantly changing. Life comes and it goes. Things come into existence and go out of existence -- unlike the eternal God. All things rot, decay and become corrupt -- again, unlike the eternal God. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, logically. And scripture harmonizes with this logic; for everywhere it teaches that God created Space, Matter and Time.

Furthermore, since human beings are an integral part of your eternal universe, you need to explain how is its possible that man created Time. Time, naturally, would be completely unknown and a foreign concept to man.

You also need to explain why Time would be a necessary construct by man. Why is mankind so helplessly and hopelessly time-bound and time-controlled?

I can't follow your logic here. Whether one exists in a pure or unpure dimension does not make time real or unreal. It is an illusion in both dimensions.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Light:

If time does not exist how can a non-existent thing be affected by gravity, like time is?

You need to expand on your point.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Light - having a discussion about time prior to the Big Bang is not subscribing to a theory of non-time.

I never referenced the Big Bang. Time didn't exist before or after it. It is a human construct.

[Light]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Time is the measurement of change.

Correct. It is simply a measurement of the intervals between events. It is not an entity of itself such as an energy. Nobody has seen time itself. It is a tool such as a ruler measures feet and inches. It would be ridiculous to say feet and inches exist. Only as an abstract in our minds do they exist.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

I can't follow your logic here. Whether one exists in a pure or unpure dimension does not make time real or unreal. It is an illusion in both dimensions.

It does because you're saying, essentially, that the universe is eternal, i..e pure existence. But everything we observe about the universe clearly suggests otherwise.

Whatever is pure existence (eternal) in essence cannot change or have any potential to change; yet the universe is filled with change. Integral parts of the universe are constantly coming into and going out of existence. If the universe were pure existence, then the universe would have to be as immutable as God is -- since he is eternal, i.e. pure existence.

Also, we're not talking about "where one exists". We're talking about whether the universe itself is eternal or temporal in nature. If the latter, then Time is real.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It does because you're saying, essentially, that the universe is eternal, i..e pure existence. But everything we observe about the universe clearly suggests otherwise.

No I am not saying the universe is eternal. Scientists have already said it will end.

It is you who is assuming I am saying the universe is eternal because I am saying time is an illusion.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Light

You need to expand on your point.

Time dilation.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Time dilation.

That shows that the measurement of time under abnormal conditions of speed or gravity will be different than normal conditions. But it does not prove time actually exists.

For example when you say "time eroded the mountain" , it's not true. Time did not erode the mountain, erosion eroded the mountain. Time has no energy in itself.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

No I am not saying the universe is eternal. Scientists have already said it will end.

It is you who is assuming I am saying the universe is eternal because I am saying time is an illusion.

Then since the universe isn't eternal, it can only be temporal, which is the antithesis to eternal. And by definition, whatever is temporal is related to time as opposed to eternity.

And by the way, since God is eternal and the universe isn't, by own admission now, this kinda puts the last nail into the coffin of your beloved pantheism. How can God be in All, and All be in God when All is going to end?

Have a nice evening.

[boxcar]

Psych prof claims God lacked Mary's 'consent'

Just when you think you've heard it all....

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2018/12/psych-pr...4RxwqKycD9q.99

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... by definition, whatever is temporal is related to time as opposed to eternity.

What definition? Where did you get it? Webster's? Oxford? Make it up yourself?

From the definitions given in Webster's one thing seems clear. As you are using the words temporal and eternal both terms are religious and thus have no applicability scientifically.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What definition? Where did you get it? Webster's? Oxford? Make it up yourself?

From the definitions given in Webster's one thing seems clear. As you are using the words temporal and eternal both terms are religious and thus have no applicability scientifically.

So..."science" neither subscribes to an eternal or temporal reality? Is there a third option here...or does the Law of Excluded Middle apply?

And I'm taking my definition from the M-W Collegiate dictionary. Is that okay with you?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And I'm taking my definition from the M-W Collegiate dictionary. Is that okay with you?

M-W has several definitions. Which one are you using?