Timeless existence

[Dancing David]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.