Timeless existence

[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?

 

[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?

I want you to confirm that this is your position. Spare me the babble. Then I can answer the question.

 

[Upchurch]

I want you to confirm that this is your position.

Yes, lifegazer, that is my position.

 

[Tricky]

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.

Something has existence.
Something cannot emanate from and amongst 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]

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.

 

[Atlas]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Atlas]

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?

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

 

[Zero]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[lifegazer]

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]

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.