Timeless existence

[Upchurch]

Lifegazer starts a thread by spouting some pseudointellectual drivel.

Check.

He gets hammered.

Check.

He tries to defend himself but winds up looking even more ridiculous.

Check.

So far, everything is right on track.

 

[Wudang]

The big bang of what?
It's impossible to believe in an external universe and not realise the distinction between substance and behaviour.

You mean matter and energy? Surely one who has grasped the fundamentals of relativity as deeply as yourself has heard of E=you-know-what?

 

[uruk]

Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said, only the contents of God's mind are changing. God itself transcends time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interesting. so that means something has to exist before change can happen to it(time). So, if existance is only in god's mind. and only the contense(existance) of god's mind is changing(time), yet god itself transcends time. Hmmm....

That means that this existance had to have existed before god's mind became aware of it. (just using your logic)

Also that are at least two parts to god: god's mind which is changing, and the other part of which does not change, whatever part that is. I thought you said god was indivisible. And indivisible means no individual parts.(using your definition)

It seems to me that you keep getting lost in your own words.
I think the problem is that you use no standard by which to define the words you use.

If you argue using QM and Classical physics you have use the established definitions used in those areas. other wise your talking a different language and your going to confuse yourself.

You read this stuff and apply a definition to some of the words which are not intended by the author. You must make use of the glossary. When you read QM and it talks about "quarks" and "spin" you don't actually believe they are talking about cottage cheese and angular momentum do you?

oh yea. BARK, BARK!

Edited to add (your definition)

 

[Iacchus]

Atlas / 68th Post

I was out of line.

I now feel I should have asked Iacchus for the best post number to synchronistically address a timeless singularity approaching absurdity in time (existencewise).

I will linger in the wings til the stars align in numeric perfection.

Actually it doesn't really work that way. It has less to do with making predications than following through with it in real time -- more of a matter of what pops up -- and taking it from there. Does that mean I'm making it up as it goes? I suppose, but the results I achieved with Mercutio's 3347th post (this is probably a number I won't be forgetting anytime soon) was pretty uncanny. I recommend you check out the thread, Synchronicity / James Randi?

By the way this was your 68th post, which corresponds to Judith (12), and signifies The Advent of the New Church. Beyond that nothing else comes to mind but, like I said, that may be just a matter of time.

So, how did you derive your username, Atlas, was this derived from the Atlas of mythology who, through his rebellion against Zeus and the Olympians, was punished by having to hold up the Universe for eternity? Doesn't sound like much of a better fate than Uranus' if you ask me. Of course the transfer of power into Zeus' hand signified the end of an age and a beginning of a new one, much as Uranus' fate represented the same thing ... http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33691

Also, with respect to Judith (12), it signifies the dawn of a New Church.

 

[lifegazer]

"I am claiming that something has to exist before changes can commence to happen within it. Sounds like the most obvious logic in the world to me."

Seems all right to me too,

Exactly. But you have to resist because of the ultimate conclusion.
God must be destroyed so that 'you' can live. I know the score.

Going back to my earlier (admittedly non-relativistic) model for time, if time begins at t=0, there can be no change until t > 0.

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.

 

[Humphreys]

Re: Atlas / 68th Post

By the way this was your 68th post, which corresponds to Judith (12), and signifies The Advent of the New Church. Beyond that nothing else comes to mind but, like I said, that may be just a matter of time.

Do me, do me!

What does my post correspond to? It must correspond to something because of the whole fundamental interconnectedness of all things, thing.

Well?

 

[lifegazer]

It's more likely there was never an existence without time, and never a time without existence. That is obvious logic, in my opinion.

Then you're "silly" Humphrey, and have totally disregarded everything I've said here. I wouldn't mind but it's very simple logic: Changes are occuring (to something). Therefore, something must exist prior to the onset of those changes.

Existence is not 'change'. Change is something which is happening to whatever exists. Therefore, existence precedes change/time.

Okay, let's take your idea seriously. Imagine we are in this timeless existence you suppose once existed. There is no time here, no change at all.

Not to IT (existence itself). If you knew more of my philosophy, you'd understand that the changes/time relate to what that existence is perceiving within itself. I.e., time relates to what happens inside [the Mind] of Existence. To the things it perceives within itself.

Now, without change, how on earth do you propose this existence changed into the existence we experience now?

Thought-experiment: picture two red balloons. Now picture them separating. Now picture them changing colour. Now picture them bursting. Now answer this question: Did this experiment change your awareness/mind itself, or just the things within its perception?

You are very silly.

You're behind the times squire. I'm actually insane... apparently.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Atlas / 68th Post

Actually it doesn't really work that way. It has less to do with making predications than following through with it in real time -- more of a matter of what pops up -- and taking it from there. Does that mean I'm making it up as it goes?... ]

Your post almost made me drop the sky. Geez Iacchus, I was counting on your help. I figured logic, spoof and ridicule weren't working, maybe Numerology had a chance. Darnitall!

As to the last line above that I quoted, on Lifegazer threads people have almost stopped caring.

So, how did you derive your username, Atlas, was this derived from the Atlas of mythology who, through his rebellion against Zeus and the Olympians, was punished by having to hold up the Universe for eternity? Doesn't sound like much of a better fate than Uranus' if you ask me. Of course the transfer of power into Zeus' hand signified the end of an age and a beginning of a new one, much as Uranus' fate represented the same thing.

After what happened to Daddy, I stuck with Chronos against Zeus. Yah, we lost. That's what got me into my current fix. Still, I kept my parts. So I got that going for me.

 

[lifegazer]

Nothing can be said to come before the onset of time, because the word "before" only has meaning in the context of time.

Rubbish. If "time" is understood to be 'change', then "before time" is understood to be 'un-change'.
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.

Logic can deal with timelessness.

Reason (words) can. Math (numbers) cannot.

Mathematics, as a formalization of logic, can deal with it as well- much better, in fact, than your vague BS buzzwords. What I have offered you is a logical proof that "before time" is incoherent. Refute it if you can, or go away.

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.

 

[Iacchus]

Humphreys / 140th Post / 1010th Post

Do me, do me!

What does my post correspond to? It must correspond to something because of the whole fundamental interconnectedness of all things, thing.

Well?

Well, being your 140th post, it brings to mind Highway 140 in Southern Oregon, which begins in White City, at the northeast end of the Rogue Valley just north of Medford, and traverses up over the Cascade Mountains and ends up in Klamath Falls, Oregon. While I remember making this trip way back when and it was kind of interesting. 20 yeaers ago? Wow! For reference to the Rogue Valley here, please refer to my link on the The New Church.

The numer 140 is also Rachel's (14) number ... 14 x 9 + "14" = 140 or, 14 x 10 = 140 ... and signifes the completion of the masuline side in the woman and in effect signifies true love (14) ... where the mans' father (1) plus the woman's mother (4) equals true love (14). For more clarification here please refer to my link on The Marriage.

That's about all I can say for now, except that I had been thinking about the significance of Highway 140 for some time (and gave it up some time ago), but hadn't really come up with anything. So maybe something will come out of that? Also, since 140 = 10 x 14, as well as 14 x 9 + "14," I suspect it might have something to do with the relationship between the numbers 9 and 10, and possibly 14 and 0 ... i.e., 14 x 10 + "0" = 140.

Hey, I just noticed that the last three digits of this post are "479," which is pretty significant in and of itself. While I had referred to this in the post regarding Mercutio's number and in the post, You want more Proof (2)?

I also noticed this was my 1010th post and, when adding its reciprocal, "0101," you get 1111 ... which corresponds to the resurrection of the Two Witnesses (i.e., 10 + 01 = 11) in Revelation 11:11

7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. - Revelation 11:7-11

Also note that verse "1111" of Euripes - The Bacchae describes the fall of Dionysus' cousin Pentheus.

While I also describe my own personal incident here in Chapter x1111 of my book.

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Re: Atlas / 68th Post

Your post almost made me drop the sky. Geez Iacchus, I was counting on your help. I figured logic, spoof and ridicule weren't working, maybe Numerology had a chance. Darnitall!

As to the last line above that I quoted, on Lifegazer threads people have almost stopped caring.

Well, maybe lifegazer is correct in the sense that The Moment is Eternal, and that God -- as does everything else -- exists in the moment.

After what happened to Daddy, I stuck with Chronos against Zeus. Yah, we lost. That's what got me into my current fix. Still, I kept my parts. So I got that going for me.

Yeah, you gotta be careful who you chose sides with, right?

 

[lifegazer]

"Actually, existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to come before the onset of time - since existence precedes transformation (within that existence)."


Translating: "existence (regardless of what it is) can be said to happen at an earlier time than the onset of time. "
Well, obviously it can be said, but surely not with a straight face?

Something has existence.
Something cannot emanate from and amongst absolute nothingness.
Something has always existed.

Existence itself doesn't "happen". It Is.

What can be seen here is two things:
(1) Existence precedes the [perceived] changes which occur within it. Existence precedes the time which happens to it.
(2) Existence itself is the origin of change... the primal-cause of time.

Again, I have brought you close to your God. And again, I shall await the brushes and the rug. And once more, I shall remind you all that you have one life and one chance. Don't go to your deaths knowing you had betrayed the truth.

 

[Tricky]

Re: Humphreys / 140th Post / 1010th Post

I also noticed this was my 1010th post and, when adding its reciprocal, "0101," you get 1111 ... which corresponds to the resurrection of the Two Witnesses (i.e., 10 + 01 = 11) in Revelation 11:11

Got a hot flash for you, Iacchus. 0101 is not the reciprocal of 1010. At most, it is a palindrome of the digits. I guess we need to add "reciprocal" to the ever-growing list (like "soul", "consciousness", "base-14", "physics", "mathamatics", and "morality") of words and terms of which you have no clear understanding.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Humphreys / 140th Post / 1010th Post

Well, being your 140th post, it brings to mind Highway 140 in...

No offense mate, but could you discuss this in another thread?
Thankyou.

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Humphreys / 140th Post / 1010th Post

No offense mate, but could you discuss this in another thread?
Thankyou.

Why should he? His future posts have yet to materialise and so exist in your "time". So they are either immaterial posts as far as you are concerned (exists but not in time) or they are the Word of God (same reasoning).

Yes?

 

[Wudang]

Something has existence.
Something cannot emanate from and amongst absolute nothingness.
Something has always existed.

Existence itself doesn't "happen". It Is.

What can be seen here is two things:
(1) Existence precedes the [perceived] changes which occur within it. Existence precedes the time which happens to it.
(2) Existence itself is the origin of change... the primal-cause of time.

See, if you keep using sloppy language you'll keep having sloppy thoughts. What does "always" mean? Since the beginning of time? What does "precedes time" mean? It happened at an earlier time than time did?
Maths is about intellectual rigour, not about the phenomenal world about which it makes no assumptions but it can be applied to the same.

 

[Iacchus]

No offense mate, but could you discuss this in another thread?
Thankyou.

Yeah, I was just getting ready to reply to Ticky Dick here, but we don't want to get him started now do we?

How about if I reply below and leave it at that then?

Also, I started a new thread, A Literal Bible? if anyone wants to argue with me there.

Got a hot flash for you, Iacchus. 0101 is not the reciprocal of 1010. At most, it is a palindrome of the digits. I guess we need to add "reciprocal" to the ever-growing list (like "soul", "consciousness", "base-14", "physics", "mathamatics", and "morality") of words and terms of which you have no clear understanding.

What are you suggesting there's a strict code here, by which "none" are left to deviate? And yet using the most "suitable" word, it's fairly clear what I'm trying to say here now isn't it?

 

[lifegazer]

See, if you keep using sloppy language you'll keep having sloppy thoughts. What does "always" mean? Since the beginning of time?

No, because it means before time too. How can there be before time, I hear you asking. The answer is simple: since time is change, then before time refers to existence before changes began to be perceived within it.
I've already showed why existence must precede time. So, before time, existence is.

What does "precedes time" mean?

Before the onset of change. Unchanging-existence.

 

[Upchurch]

I've already showed why existence must precede time.

But you haven't addressed the possibility that the first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.

 

[lifegazer]

But you haven't addressed the possibility that the first change, and thus the beginning of time, was from non-existance to existance.

You think there's a possibility that all changing-existence had an origin from absolutely-nothing and without any cause?