• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Timeless existence

Graham said:

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
Click to expand...
Somebody probably wanted to keep it to the basic theme, right?
 
Jet Grind said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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)?
 
Acrimonious said:
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)?
Click to expand...

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
 
Graham said:

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
Click to expand...
Yes, but how much more personal can you get than Uranus? :D
 
Atlas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Upchurch said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Acrimonious said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upchurch said:
You may not have heard. I got married recently.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: Re: An interesting game...

Upchurch said:
"Come on. Learn, goddammit."

:hit:
Click to expand...

Hahaha!

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

scribble said:

I've got to go see that movie again. That's a fine quote for this particular instance.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
 
Jet Grind said:
Things which your argument ignores:

1. Time is relative, not absolute.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
But God doesn't change. The contents of God's Mind change.
 
Krandal2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
By illusion - in its mind/awareness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom