Can you answer this unanswerable question?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Hi. In answer to the first one: It niether "lasted" no time nor infinite time, and obviously not fir finite time. There simply IS NO TIME.

Those are exacly the words I used "No time". So, it existed for "no time"...right?

to the second: yeah, By using "before," I am. This is because our language is not well suited to desctribe things existing without time.

Of course not, since it takes a certain amount of time to describe something. It takes a certain amount of time to think about describing something. It even takes a certain amount of time to learn enough about the thing to be able to explain it.

Religion deals with knowledge but knowledge alone has nothing to do with religion.

I could contest the possibility that you are wrong here, but there's not point arguing every point .

To the last: my comparison of untime to the past and future being present always is merely a metaphor to help understand... Untime is another dimension, you cannot comprehend unless you have experience it.

But experiencing it would take a certain amount of time, wouldn't it?

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Mentat
Those are exacly the words I used "No time". So, it existed for "no time"...right?

But experiencing it would take a certain amount of time, wouldn't it?

Apparently you got me. Again, the language is not suited. Okay, it is more accurately neither with time nor without time.

The answer to "experiencing untime would take a certain amount of time" depends on which perspective you use. To the perspective that exists within time, it might "take some time" for something to blink out of time, experience it, and blink back... but to the perspective that actually experiences it, this is not ture. For example, an example using only time, say you went in a very fast vehicle and flew around the universe. Now, according to relativity time occours to you at a slower pace... so you may have only experienced a few days, then you come back to Earth... but millions or years have passed on Earth even though for you it was only a few days.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Apparently you got me. Again, the language is not suited. Okay, it is more accurately neither with time nor without time.

You must be one or the other, musn't you? After all, if you take it one step at a time, you would first say: I am without time.
Then you would say: I am not without time.
Then I would say: Huh?

The answer to "experiencing untime would take a certain amount of time" depends on which perspective you use. To the perspective that exists within time, it might "take some time" for something to blink out of time, experience it, and blink back... but to the perspective that actually experiences it, this is not ture. For example, an example using only time, say you went in a very fast vehicle and flew around the universe. Now, according to relativity time occours to you at a slower pace... so you may have only experienced a few days, then you come back to Earth... but millions or years have passed on Earth even though for you it was only a few days.

Absolutely. And, if you could travel at the speed of light (which you can't, btw...trying to avoid too much needless speculation on that issue - at least for this thread) it would take no time at all, but then you would not have experienced anything either...since experience takes time.

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Deeviant
I am well aware of the changing of certain religions to bring evolution and cosmology, but this only suggests that their beliefs are not supported by science

Which religions?
In the bhavaghad-gita, 5000 years old, Lord Krishna clearly explains the creation of the universe which could be considered big bang, and he also states that it will also be annihilated. I've asked some scholars of the scriptures for the actual duration of the universe and I got 3 quadrillion, 153 trillion and 600 billion years.

A far cry from Genesis.

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Mentat
but then you would not have experienced

No, you would not have experienced anything from the prespective of a time-based consciousness. That is the whole point. If the consciousness is time-based, it cannot not by definition expereince untime, it will merely not interpret it at all and it will be oblivious of it. The brain is not capable of experiencing untime.

Actually, our spiritual consciouness, which is beyond the brain, which flows into the brain, is untime-based. We are submerged in untime.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Which religions?
In the bhavaghad-gita, 5000 years old, Lord Krishna clearly explains the creation of the universe which could be considered big bang, and he also states that it will also be annihilated. I've asked some scholars of the scriptures for the actual duration of the universe and I got 3 quadrillion, 153 trillion and 600 billion years.

A far cry from Genesis.

Ok so I take you you intrepreted "certain religions" to be "which ever religion that YOU could think of". However, in this case, it is whatever religions that I am thinking of that I do not wish to specifically name because I don't want to turn this into a theological argument.

I'm sorry elwestrand, I don't mean any offense but you arguments here and on many other threads seem very loosely based upon any sort of validity, reality, or truth.

And if you are not looking any sort of validity, reality, or truth, but only to create your own in your own image(sound familiar). I suggest writing some fictious books, you could perhaps earn a living at what you seem to enjoy.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
No, you would not have experienced anything from the prespective of a time-based consciousness. That is the whole point. If the consciousness is time-based, it cannot not by definition expereince untime, it will merely not interpret it at all and it will be oblivious of it. The brain is not capable of experiencing untime.

Actually, our spiritual consciouness, which is beyond the brain, which flows into the brain, is untime-based. We are submerged in untime.

Cartesian Dualism? The current philosophy of the mind usually holds that as a faux pas...perhaps I should put this in the form of questions:

1. Is the "spritual consciousness" physical?

 

[elwestrand]

I don't have arguments here.
I do not like religion.
I also do not care much about reality or "validity" it is true, please do not assume otherwise. I have no taste for reality, maybe parareality or transreality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
I don't have arguments here.
I do not like religion.
I also do not care much about reality or "validity" it is true, please do not assume otherwise. I have no taste for reality, maybe parareality or transreality.

O...k...is the consciousness physical?

 

[elwestrand]

I don't know anything about Cartisian dualism, other thatn a lot of people don't like it. but I have already posted a long introduction By Chris Langan which speaks about it, somewhere. I renounce this forum though because I feel this sort of philosophy is a waste of life. It merely gratifies curiosity and ego. What does it matter if "cartisian duality" is "valid?" Believing or not believing it will not affect one's quality of life in the long run.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
I don't know anything about Cartisian dualism, other thatn a lot of people don't like it. but I have already posted a long introduction By Chris Langan which speaks about it, somewhere. I renounce this forum though because I feel this sort of philosophy is a waste of life. It merely gratifies curiosity and ego. What does it matter if "cartisian duality" is "valid?" Believing or not believing it will not affect one's quality of life in the long run.

Then why did you posit the "spiritual consciousness" in the first place? What is it that you believe in?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by WingZero
who made god?

That still doesn't get around the fact that "we" exist. In which case I think we should be asking "who" made us?

Isn't it possible for us to create things? If so, then why couldn't something create us? Sounds pretty plain and simple to me.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
That still doesn't get around the fact that "we" exist. In which case I think we should be asking "who" made us?

Isn't it possible for us to create things? If so, then why couldn't something create us? Sounds pretty plain and simple to me.

We our children of the universe. It created us.

We still don't know what created the universe, so that's as far as we can go for now.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Deeviant
We our children of the universe. It created us.

We still don't know what created the universe, so that's as far as we can go for now.

And yet would you go so far as to say the Universe was unintelligent? Because it sure doesn't appear to be designed that way.

Look at ourselves. Doesn't that suggest the Universe was designed to evolve and sustain intelligence?

And so I ask, Who was the intelligence behind what created us?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet would you go so far as to say the Universe was unintelligent? Because it sure doesn't appear to be designed that way.

Look at ourselves. Doesn't that suggest the Universe was designed to evolve and sustain intelligence?

And so I ask, Who was the intelligence behind what created us?

What law states intelligence must be created from intelligence? Are you just using the feeling that something as great and neat as ourselfs just MUST be created by something even more great and even neater?

Well there is no evidence to support this claim, a claim it will remain, unproven.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Deeviant
What law states intelligence must be created from intelligence? Are you just using the feeling that something as great and neat as ourselfs just MUST be created by something even more great and even neater?

Well there is no evidence to support this claim, a claim it will remain, unproven.

There is no evidence? Or no supportable evidence? And who pray tell is going to determine the criteria for supporting it?

 

[FZ+]

There is no evidence? Or no supportable evidence? And who pray tell is going to determine the criteria for supporting it?

You are, since you are the claimant. It is then our job to decide if we accept it, and if it outweighs contrary evidence. If you don't supply evidence, then surely it is reasonable for us to presume you don't have any...

 

[Iacchus32]

From the the Internet Infidels' thread, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78035 ...

"The kingdom of heaven is within." Therefore I think if science can even hope to solve this -- if, in fact that's its intent -- then it's going to have to toss aside the fact that only a "physical" reality exists, and consider the fact that as human beings we possesses what you might call "a soul."

 

[FZ+]

I fail to see how that quote makes any sense at all.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I fail to see how that quote makes any sense at all.

I'm saying the evidence is within us and that this is where we need to look. While I doubt very much that we'll find it in the outer "physical universe," unless of course we had the means by which to mirror it in ourselves, through the means of "our soul."

 

[FZ+]

Well, the evidence inside me tells me that you are wrong. See?

To point at illusionary "evidence" hidden in unreachable places, and conveniently indistinguishible from imagination, is logically rather hard to consider credible.

 

[phoenixthoth]

where does proof take place? does it take place in the experiement your doing or the journal you're reading (ie outside you) or does it take place inside when you reach that pivotal moment when you go from not being convinced to being convinced?

 

[Visitor]

Who made God?

The question makes 2 assumptions, both of which may be false. First assumption is the existence of God, something that is still debated on many other worlds, not just this self centered mudball. The second assumption is that he had to be made. Did anyone make that diamond crystal on you girlfriend's finger? If God exists, he did not necessarily have to be made by another higher being.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Well, the evidence inside me tells me that you are wrong. See?

To point at illusionary "evidence" hidden in unreachable places, and conveniently indistinguishible from imagination, is logically rather hard to consider credible.

Oh, you admit to something being inside there then?

So, how does that something inside you go about determining whether anything is correct? In other words how do you know that science is correct? Do you just assume that it is?

And yet what if you could see just as clearly about your own internal observations as science does about its empirical data? What are you to rely upon then?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Visitor
Who made God?

The question makes 2 assumptions, both of which may be false. First assumption is the existence of God, something that is still debated on many other worlds, not just this self centered mudball. The second assumption is that he had to be made. Did anyone make that diamond crystal on you girlfriend's finger? If God exists, he did not necessarily have to be made by another higher being.

So, would you care to address how the universe can exist without a Primal Cause?

Did you know that it's possible for Eternity to exist without time?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
where does proof take place? does it take place in the experiement your doing or the journal you're reading (ie outside you) or does it take place inside when you reach that pivotal moment when you go from not being convinced to being convinced?

Yes, what exactly is it that's being convinced here?

 

[FZ+]

In other words how do you know that science is correct?

I don't. Science is an attitude, or a process. Is eating ice cream "correct"? In science, judgement is made by combining the totality of evidence to highlight the most likely, and least untrue theory.

And yet what if you could see just as clearly about your own internal observations as science does about its empirical data?

What if God exists? Then God would exist, would he not? This hypothetical question does not seem useful.

Science does not assume the clear objectivity of the data. Things are weighed in favour of more reliable ones, yes, but scientific debate is an attempt to play off the subjective and fuzzy elements against each other. Your "internal observations" have been devised to avoid any assessment of reliability, to avoid rational debate. That is currently their only distinguishing property, and so your internal observations are useless.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+

I don't. Science is an attitude, or a process. Is eating ice cream "correct"? In science, judgement is made by combining the totality of evidence to highlight the most likely, and least untrue theory.

What if God exists? Then God would exist, would he not? This hypothetical question does not seem useful.

Science does not assume the clear objectivity of the data. Things are weighed in favour of more reliable ones, yes, but scientific debate is an attempt to play off the subjective and fuzzy elements against each other. Your "internal observations" have been devised to avoid any assessment of reliability, to avoid rational debate. That is currently their only distinguishing property, and so your internal observations are useless.

What is so irrational to say that in order for us to observe the immaterial (on an individual basis) we have to have a piece of the that in ourselves ... "a soul" in other words? As a matter-of-fact that's the most rational thing one can possibly say if, in fact God does exist. Or else how would we know?

Yep, God gave us big brains and the last thing we "know" is how to use them ...

 

[FZ+]

What is so irrational to say that in order for us to observe the immaterial

Being observed <=> whatever is observed is material

we have to have a piece of the that in ourselves ... "a soul" in other words?

That it does not follow. Observing radioactivity requires a geiger counter, not an internal radioactive source. (Which would be bad for your health) It is something pulled out of the air, without any philosophical usefulness.

As a matter-of-fact that's the most rational thing one can possibly say if, in fact God does exist.

But we don't. And God may not exist. And so this argument doesn't mean anything.

 

[hedons]

For clarify in your question, "Who made God?" please define what God is.