Are You into Time?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can see in that sentence the difficulties logic starts to have when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This is carried over from DS's thread on Cost/Benefits of Religion:



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I submit this is why many people cling to religion even while suspecting they could be wrong. You can't tell me people like NotReady don't see or understand the sound logic that is presented on this board, day after day. Of course he sees it! But it's like being told your mother's not your mother. He's better off refusing to accept that, and he knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only think you have "sound logic" because you don't understand the nature of what you are applying that logic to.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what IS the nature of what we are applying that logic to? I say it's reality. You say, it's what?....

[/ QUOTE ]

You might try rereading my last couple of hundred posts, as many of them have been speaking to this point. You can see from your discussion of Time here that you don't even understand the nature of our physical reality as it relates to Time all that well. Your logic is breaking down already as you try to apply it in that context. Yet you presume you understand the nature of All Reality well enough that you can apply your logic with brute force to questions much more mysterious than Time. Like "God", whatever is really being pointed to by that word.

I usually distinguish between physical reality and Spiritual Reality so as to emphasize that concepts discussed involving the Spiritual must be dealt with differently than those to which science can be applied. But even then I have to recognize the limitations of my descriptive tools for Spiritual Reality and its nature. This is why I started the Thread, "Is a Zen Koan Accurate". Did you read that thread?

Zen Buddhists are quick to point out that their descriptions of the True Buddha Nature cannot really tell it to you. You must experience it to realize what they are talking about. Even in Christianity, the Vatican freely admits that the best we can do with our language is provide metaphors and analogies for that which we experience in Faith. I understand that none of this makes much sense to you. That's why I pointed out to you in this thread what starts to happen to your logic when you make just a small beginning to thinking outside of the box.

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Yet you presume you understand the nature of All Reality well enough that you can apply your logic with brute force to questions much more mysterious than Time. </font>

But I do no such thing. At least I don't think I do, or I try not to. I'm willing to entertain all kinds of notions about the "spiritual world" as you call it, or the "oneness with the universe", etc. I don't know much about Buddhists, but from the little I know, it has a much sounder philosophy than most other religions.

All I'm saying is that logic stands and should not be abandoned or suspended. Logic means you can change your stance (and probably will). However, in lieu of concrete answers, the proper stance is, "I don't yet know, or it's probably this, or there's no reason to suspect this, etc.".

That's all I'm saying. It doesn't matter that we're still ignorant about much of our universe. There are a myriad of potential answers, but we still don't abandon logic. And abandoning logic is what you MUST do, if you want to be a Christian.

[godBoy]

Now your question is different, it seems like you are asking if it's possible time did not have a beginning.

This is different to asking if time exists at all - which is what I was answering with yes.
I'm doing so in the same way those math types claimed .999{repeating} was exactly the same as 1.
Time itself - is a useful concept that we can use to make measurements with.

Are you asking if eternity exists?
I would say it's impossible to test from our observation point(somewhere within it), but it is a very interesting philosophical thing to question.

[MidGe]

Lestat,

I agree entirely with you and I don't think many would disagree. Time is a measurement of change. If there was no change anywhere (ie everything was frozen), there would be no time, let alone a way of measuring it. Which makes everlasting life of paradise somewhat moot, unless it was variable and therefore sometimes better/worse than others. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

On another thread a while back, I made the point that time was a derived spatial measurement, not another dimension.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But I do no such thing. At least I don't think I do, or I try not to. I'm willing to entertain all kinds of notions about the "spiritual world" as you call it, or the "oneness with the universe", etc. I don't know much about Buddhists, but from the little I know, it has a much sounder philosophy than most other religions

[/ QUOTE ]

You entertain the notions. But you don't really understand them because you've never had the experience for what the notions are trying to point to. You are standing outside of something you can't see into, applying logic in hopes of discovering what's there when the only way you can really find out is to step inside. The reports you hear from those who have stepped inside sound like poetry and Zen Koans to you. You conclude they have abandoned logic. They haven't. You just don't understand the limitations of language for what they have discovered.

PairTheBoard

[Rodney_King]

PairTheBoard--
what would you describe your beliefs/spiritual leanings as? I guess I had you pegged as an atheist from most of your domination of the evangelical posters, would you consider yourself more in line with Buddhism?
I like the statement of how those "inside" haven't actually abandoned logic, others cannot see their logic. I love koans, although I am no Zen master, I have had moments where I definitely understand what they are saying. Would it then be clear to say your main issue with Christians is more along the lines of how many seem to point repeatedly to the Bible? It's not because they were moved to do so themselves, or have logic they can't explain, it is more of a herd/brainwashing mentality.

Excuse me if I'm making no sense, it is 430 in the morning and i'm taking a break from writing a paper.
essentially, PTB, you are the man.

[Lestat]

So you think that those who have "stepped inside" are privvy to an understanding the rest of us aren't?

When I used to drop acid, I thought I was privvy to a whole other reality that was beyond most people's understanding too. The point is, there are all kinds of ways to "feel" an inner understanding. Whatever floats your boat. It doesn't mean you're any closer to the actual answer though. Logic simply is the realization of this fact.

[joes28]

[ QUOTE ]
Back in my drug-induced teenage years, whenever someone would ask me what time it was, I'd reply, "I'm not into time". Who would've thought that this might've been the correct position to take?

From everything I've been reading, it's looking more and more like time might not actually exist. Clocks? They are simply devices that measure movement, not necessarily time. We construe movement as time, but that doesn't mean there is such a thing as time. There also seems to be no good reason for time to point towards the future. If it existed at all, it should just as easily point towards the past. So my question is:

If there really is no such thing as time, then does this mean there is no such thing as eternity? Or how about infinity? Also, does this increase or decrease the likelihood of a God? You no longer have to account for "what created God", since without time, it becomes more reasonable to assume that God could've always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it not also become more reasonable that the universe has always existed?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Time is a measurement of change. If there was no change anywhere (ie everything was frozen), there would be no time, let alone a way of measuring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an interesting thought experiment on this point. I can't recall who crafted it...

Imagine a 'universe' made up of 3 distinct areas. During 'normal' times, people can move from area to area freely. Each area is observable from the other areas.

Now let each area have a cycle of x = 3,4, or 5 years. Every x years, all change stops in an area. So after 3 years, all change stops in area 1. When change resumes, the inhabitants of area 1 look out at the other two areas and see a bunch of miraculous changes (plants appearing, people disappearing, etc.). To the inhabitants of areas 2 and 3, nothing unusual happened with time...there was just a 'freezing' in area 1.

Since each area can observe the cycles of the others, they could figure out what the cycle times were, and could likewise figure out their own cycle time. They could then infer that every 60 years, all 3 areas would 'freeze' simultaneously...

Does it really make sense to say that time doesn't exist during the 60th year?

(Not that I agree with it neccesarily, but I think it's an interesting argument)

[MidGe]

The thought experiments fail to address the issue, imo. It makes someone both aware of change and not. A single change, in a universe, doesn't matter how small and insignificant, whether observed or not, would be a quantum of time *derived" from a spatial change. No single change, no time!