The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[Daviso452]

That Big Bang show is totally overrated. How many jokes about geeks playing rpg's can they possibly come up with?

Think of it a compilation of all nerdy jokes in history. They've got a lot to work with.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Infinity doesn't have to stretch in both directions.

Depending on how one defines "stretch" it doesn't have to stretch in either direction. There are an infinite number of irrational numbers between 0 and 1. In fact, there are more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 than in the entire (infinite) set of rational numbers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

With the singularity there was still time and still space it just wasn't space-time.

I thought we already covered this. On what do you base this statement?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well in order to distinguish something there has to be at least one other thing to compare it to. This is a requirement.

So we distinguish the state at time Tzero to time T1. Motionless doesn't equal timeless. It just means motionless. A particle can exist alone in a universe without moving for 1,000,000 million years. It's still existing through time. Why equate a lack of change in state with a lack of change in time?

As I said before, once you become temporal, you are always temporal.

"But all the clocks in the city
Began to whir and chime
O let not time deceive you
You cannot conquer time

In the burrows of the nightmare
Where justice naked is
Time watches from the shadow
And coughs when you would kiss."
-Auden

If there was an preceding moment, tell me how many moments led up to me standing up??

The same number of moments between me typing
L

and

M

An infinite number of moments elsapsed between the time I typed the first to the second or so later I typed the second.

 

[Daviso452]

So we distinguish the state at time Tzero to time T1. Motionless doesn't equal timeless. It just means motionless. A particle can exist alone in a universe without moving for 1,000,000 million years. It's still existing through time. Why equate a lack of change in state with a lack of change in time?





"But all the clocks in the city
Began to whir and chime
O let not time deceive you
You cannot conquer time

In the burrows of the nightmare
Where justice naked is
Time watches from the shadow
And coughs when you would kiss."
-Auden



The same number of moments which preceded me typing
L

and

M

An infinite number of moments elsapsed between the time I typed the first to the second or so later I typed the second.

You will not take sides, will you? Frubal for you.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

As i said, Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. Major Religions Ranked by Size, Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well shoot, that's the first time in this entire thread you've said anything that's accurate! Grats.

In any case, this just means that the numbers of people taken in by a poor work of fiction is even larger

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You will not take sides, will you?

The price of being agnostic when it comes to just about everything.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes. 10 minutes before you stood up, and 30 minutes before you stood up. You can go back infinitely. You can go back 14 billion years before you stood up, or 19 trillion years before you stood up. Two distinguishable points.

Ok, so using the same analogy, lets say i have been sitting perfectly still for eternity and begin to stand up. From the moment I began to stand up, I want you to travel back in time and stop at the same identical point where you reach equal interval to the present moment of me standing, and place a number on that point. What number would you place on that point?

Infinity doesn't have to stretch in both directions. Think of a number line. You standing up is at point 0. 0 - infinity refers to all the time prior to when you stood up. There is no start to this, but the points are still distinguishable nonetheless.

Um, how could the standing point be zero if there was time before it??? If there was time before I began to stand, as you seem to think, then the moment that i stood up couldn't possibly be 0, because you have to count the moments leading to me standing. If that is the case, then the point that i stood couldn't possibly be 0. The moment that i began to stand is just one of many (an infinite amount) moments that occured prior to me standing. Now you are right, infinity doesnt have to stretch in both directions, and that is why we distinguish "potential" infinity from "actual" infinity. In potential infinity (as related to time), the past is finite but is moving towards an infinite future. But in actual infinity, the past is infinite, which is absurd.

Remember with Einstein's theory, everything is relative. Same as events. The time before you stood up is, as it implies, relative to when you stood up. Same withe the actual action of standing up. When you stand up, the time is 0. While you were sitting down, time was negative. The two points could be 20 minutes prior at your location, or zero minutes prior at your location. Two different points.

Once again, if there was moments leading to me standing up, how could the point at which i stood be labeled as 0?

Because there IS NO later or sooner to the singularity, just like God. Why didn't God make the earth later or sooner? Because to him, there is no such thing. If he existed, I mean.

God had an eternal will to create the universe. It wasn't something that all of a sudden decided to do. If someone has a free will to do something, the action of whatever the person wants to do will take place at whatever time the person decides to do it. God was changeless, meaning his thoughts were fixed from all eternity, he knew what he wanted to do from eternity. He had an eternal will to "choose" at what point he wanted to create the universe, which he did. But without God, there were no preexisting conditions like free will to be the reason why the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago and not 13.7 trillion years ago. That is the difference.

You used a wikipedia article! No way! And it says "many have used it to refer to a timeless existence"? Does that mean they aren't actually synonymous?

Im not the only one on here that has used a wiki-link. Second, "may have used it..." simply mean that logical people conclude that if you say "time had a beginning", then whatever gave it that beginning cannot be considered "temporal". This is elementary logic and reasoning. The only way out of this is to postulate a timeless cause, which is absolutely necessary. Third, even in my microsoft works definition, the #2 definition of "eternal" is "timelessness: the condition, quality, or fact of being without beginning or end." So this is more than just a wikipedia definition my friend.

There is a difference between eternal and timeless. Unless you come up with a scientific source which states the are the exact same, you cannot inter-changeably use the two. They are two different words with two different definitions. Please use one or the other.

Dude, do you ever know what you are talking about?? In the above definition of "eternal" from Microsoft Works, the #2 definition for eternity IS TIMELESSNESS. So cmon now.

 

[McBell]

Dude, do you ever know what you are talking about??

 

[Koldo]

But without God, there were no preexisting conditions like free will to be the reason why the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago and not 13.7 trillion years ago. That is the difference.

Not only there doesn't have to be a reason as to why it began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, this matter in itself is meaningless.

It couldn't have been before nor later because there was no time before the big bang. An event couldn't have happened before if time didn't exist. It is 13.7 billion years old because it had to be.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok, so using the same analogy, lets say i have been sitting perfectly still for eternity and begin to stand up. From the moment I began to stand up, I want you to travel back in time and stop at the same identical point where you reach equal interval to the present moment of me standing, and place a number on that point. What number would you place on that point?

Have you studied limits? If we talk about the moment you stand up (as in the very instant), it's not an interval. That's true for every "moment." If you sat down now, and then stood up, you couldn't "travel back in time and stop at the same identical point where you reach an equal interval to the present moment of you standing."

Time is continuous. Which means any interval of time is an approximation. I'm sitting right now. Let's call the this Tzero (it could be any time of day). I stand up. In the "instant" in which I begin to stand, how much time has passed? I could say 1 second. But then I could also say half a second. Or a quarter. Or a hundred billionth of a second. I can always talk about smaller and smaller units, but the "instant" I begin to stand is a limit. Let 1/x equal the approximate interval of time in seconds we call the "moment" I begin to stand. As x grows infinitely larger, the interval of time tends to zero. In fact, the limit of the function as x tends to infinity from the right IS zero. That's an instant. But it's not an interval.

then the moment that i stood up couldn't possibly be 0, because you have to count the moments leading to me standing. If that is the case, then the point that i stood couldn't possibly be 0.

We can call any time 0. People do it all the time.

This is elementary logic and reasoning.

Not really. Time was a huge problem for aristotle and remains one for formal logic even today.

The only way out of this is to postulate a timeless cause, which is absolutely necessary.

Or we could just say there was no cause, because the argument that there must be a cause comes from a temporal understanding and view. The causation argument, even if accurate for events which occur in time, need not hold for an atemporal reality. No time "before" the universe, ergo no cause.

Dude, do you ever know what you are talking about?? In the above definition of "eternal" from Microsoft Works, the #2 definition for eternity IS TIMELESSNESS. So cmon now.

Let's c'mon then, and go with definition 2. In that case, you've been sitting in your chair for timelessnes. Only that doesn't make any sense. You can't sit in a chair for timelessness (unless you mean on the behalf of timelessness, which clearly you don't). So definition 2 makes no sense in the context of your scenerio.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Have you studied limits? If we talk about the moment you stand up (as in the very instant), it's not an interval. That's true for every "moment."

It is the BEGINNING of the "moment set". From the moment that I began to stand, time began, 0,1,2,3,4,5, etc, all the way to our present moment. T0 represents the first moment of time, the BEGINNING.

If you sat down now, and then stood up, you couldn't "travel back in time and stop at the same identical point where you reach an equal interval to the present moment of you standing.

Yes I could!!! If today is February 2, 2012, and if i had a time machine and decided to go back exactly 10 years from this present day, the time machine would go back to February 2, 2002. That is going back EQUAL intervals, because I have two distinctive points at which I can move from A to B!!!! But if I have been sitting still in a chair for eternity, there ARE NO two distinctive points. There is no "present" moment, because there were'nt any past moments leading up to the present moment. But if i was sitting still and then i stood up, time began from there on, 1,2,3,4,5 etc. Then a billion years later, someone could ask me "how long has it been since you first stood up??", then i could answer "A billion years". But before i stood up, the question could never be "how long have i been sitting" because this question assumes there was a point at which I began to sit. If i say "for eternity", then how long is that? Every time we ask the question of "how long..." this question assumes that there was a beginning point. So that beginning point is the first point of reference that is relative to the present moment.

"How long have I been in the military??", Answer: I began my military career August 2, 2006 (Point A), and I have been in ever since, February 2, 2012 [present day] (Point B). The interval between point A and point B is 5 years and 6 months. But If i have been sitting still for eternity, there is no Point A, so there is no identical point of reference. This makes perfect sense, because if the past is infinite, then it would be impossible to arrive at our present moment. So a timeless cause is absolutely necessary.

Time is continuous. Which means any interval of time is an approximation. I'm sitting right now. Let's call the this Tzero (it could be any time of day). I stand up. In the "instant" in which I begin to stand, how much time has passed? I could say 1 second. But then I could also say half a second. Or a quarter. Or a hundred billionth of a second. I can always talk about smaller and smaller units, but the "instant" I begin to stand is a limit.

Exactly!!!!! You can conclude how much time has passed from the moment you stood up ONLY because you have a beginning point at which you started!!! There is a reference point. But if you have been sitting still for eternity, how long, moving backwards in time, did it take for you to stand??? Do you notice how you cant go back to an initial beginning point going backwards, but you have a beginning reference point (from the moment you stood up) moving forward???

Let 1/x equal the approximate interval of time in seconds we call the "moment" I begin to stand. As x grows infinitely larger, the interval of time tends to zero. In fact, the limit of the function as x tends to infinity from the right IS zero. That's an instant. But it's not an interval.

Im not following you here. What do you mean "the interval of time tends to zero". If x grows infinitely larger, then how is that a quantity of zero??

We can call any time 0. People do it all the time.

Time began at T0. From T0 all the way to the present time. "T0" represents the beginning point

Not really. Time was a huge problem for aristotle and remains one for formal logic even today.

Fine, but that doesn't mean that aristotle thought that time had a beginning without the cause of time being itself, in time. That is about as nonsensical as you can get.

Or we could just say there was no cause, because the argument that there must be a cause comes from a temporal understanding and view. The causation argument, even if accurate for events which occur in time, need not hold for an atemporal reality. No time "before" the universe, ergo no cause.

Cmon now Either time had a beginning, or it didnt have a beginning. If it had a beginning, then the cause HAS TO BE timeless. There is no getting around this. Explain to me how time could have a beginning with the cause of time itself being temporal.

Let's c'mon then, and go with definition 2. In that case, you've been sitting in your chair for timelessnes. Only that doesn't make any sense. You can't sit in a chair for timelessness (unless you mean on the behalf of timelessness, which clearly you don't). So definition 2 makes no sense in the context of your scenerio.

I dont see the beef with timelessness. All I see is "you cant sit in a chair for timelessness." Back up the statement.

 

[Koldo]

I dont see the beef with timelessness. All I see is "you cant sit in a chair for timelessness." Back up the statement.

The verb 'sit' is being used in the present tense.
If it is timeless, there is no present.
So it follows you can't sit in a chair for timelessness.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is the BEGINNING of the "moment set".

My point was simply that you were asking for something that was impossible, but not for the reasons you think.

From the moment that I began to stand, time began, 0,1,2,3,4,5, etc, all the way to our present moment. T0 represents the first moment of time, the BEGINNING.

Yes, you are asserting this, but you still haven't said why someone why you are equating a changeless state with atemporality. This argument that someone doing nothing must be somehow not involve time, or even could, doesn't seem to be based on anything. Your definition of time, as I said, merely requires the ability to distinguish points. A changless system or a particle whose state does not change still moves through time. A key part of your argument seems to be this 1) equating changlessness with timelessness and 2) eternity with timelessness based on a dictionary. The problem, however, is that words are polysemous. They have multiple shades of meaning. However, context limits the range. For example, when I use the word "drive" in "work is driving me crazy" then it is quite clear I am being metaphorical, and not that something called work is moving me via vehicular transport to a location called crazy. Likewise, eternity has shades of meaning, but when you say "sitting in a chair for eternity" you are using what can be called a temporal prepositional phrase. In English, when we want to express an extent of time, one way to do so is to use a VP followed by a PP, which consists of "for" plus something to indicate the duration of time. So, to answer your question-

I dont see the beef with timelessness. All I see is "you cant sit in a chair for timelessness." Back up the statement

the reason is the that while timelessness can only indicate an abstract noun, eternity can indicate a duration of time. If you use the "doing X for Y" construction, where X is a VP, then what "Y" is in your construction can change the entire meaning. The other very common use of this construction is to indicate something done on another's behalf, e.g. "I'm doing this for love." If what you plug in for "Y" can mean either duration or an abstract noun, then you may have ambiguity. For example, "I'm fasting for today" usually refers to duration, but someone may say the same thing on a religious holiday or some other special occasion to indicate the reason they are fasting.

Using "timelessness" removes any possible ambiguity. It can't refer to duration. So when you plug it into the construction, it can only mean "I'm sitting on behalf of/because of timelessness." However, when you say "I'm sitting for eternity" it either means you are sitting for an eternal duration of time, or you are sitting for the sake of/ on behalf of eternity. The latter option makes little or no sense in almost any context. The natural interpretation of "I'm sitting for eternity" is durational. In other words, you are sitting for an eternal duration of time. That's what this construction means. You can't argue it means something else by pointing to a different dictionary definition, any more than I can argue that "driving somebody crazy" refers to something to do with a car because that's in the dictionary.

But if I have been sitting still in a chair for eternity, there ARE NO two distinctive points.

Sure there are. The number line extends infinitely in both directions, but there are still points. Likewise, if you have been doing something "for eternity" then I can distinguish points in time in the same way.

However, the real problem is, as I said, that "doing X for enternity" cannot refer to "timelessness." The construction is a durational one. And since the duration is infinite, you can't stand up. If you do, then you didn't sit for eternity. Which is why using the progressive perfect doesn't make sense and your sentence falls apart-you are misusing the word eternity because while you validly point out it can refer to "timelessness" it can't in the "doing X for Y." So your whole "sitting in a chair" argument relies on a misuse of a word because you didn't/don't realize you can't simply plug definitions of words into constructions from a dictionary.

Cmon now Either time had a beginning, or it didnt have a beginning. If it had a beginning, then the cause HAS TO BE timeless. There is no getting around this. Explain to me how time could have a beginning with the cause of time itself being temporal.

Again, why must there be a cause?

 

[Daviso452]

Um, how could the standing point be zero if there was time before it??? If there was time before I began to stand, as you seem to think, then the moment that i stood up couldn't possibly be 0, because you have to count the moments leading to me standing. If that is the case, then the point that i stood couldn't possibly be 0. The moment that i began to stand is just one of many (an infinite amount) moments that occured prior to me standing. Now you are right, infinity doesnt have to stretch in both directions, and that is why we distinguish "potential" infinity from "actual" infinity. In potential infinity (as related to time), the past is finite but is moving towards an infinite future. But in actual infinity, the past is infinite, which is absurd.

It's a freaking analogy. Don't get so caught up in semantics! "0" was just used to show the present, negative is the past, and positive is the future.

God had an eternal will to create the universe. It wasn't something that all of a sudden decided to do. If someone has a free will to do something, the action of whatever the person wants to do will take place at whatever time the person decides to do it. God was changeless, meaning his thoughts were fixed from all eternity, he knew what he wanted to do from eternity. He had an eternal will to "choose" at what point he wanted to create the universe, which he did. But without God, there were no preexisting conditions like free will to be the reason why the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago and not 13.7 trillion years ago. That is the difference.

Okay. That makes sense. But the point I was trying to make still stands; there was no "sooner" or "later." You could look at it as being simultaneous. That isn't completely accurate, but it makes it easier to comprehend.

Im not the only one on here that has used a wiki-link. Second, "may have used it..." simply mean that logical people conclude that if you say "time had a beginning", then whatever gave it that beginning cannot be considered "temporal". This is elementary logic and reasoning. The only way out of this is to postulate a timeless cause, which is absolutely necessary. Third, even in my microsoft works definition, the #2 definition of "eternal" is "timelessness: the condition, quality, or fact of being without beginning or end." So this is more than just a wikipedia definition my friend.

Thank you for using another source. I do recommend you provide a link to it in the future however.


[/quote]Dude, do you ever know what you are talking about?? In the above definition of "eternal" from Microsoft Works, the #2 definition for eternity IS TIMELESSNESS. So cmon now.[/QUOTE]

Okay. I'll admit you were right on this. I had thought wrong on the definition of timelessness. Neither of these words is a good description for the singularity. It was not eternal or timeless. It was just without time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The verb 'sit' is being used in the present tense.
If it is timeless, there is no present.
So it follows you can't sit in a chair for timelessness.

You are begging the question by assuming time before time. Present would mean there were prior moments in time leading up to me sitting. This is NOT the case, because if i never BEGAN to sit, there isn't any moments leading to it. If you think this is the case, then explain to me how many moments passed leading up to me standing up??? I will wait.

 

[McBell]

You are begging the question by assuming time before time. Present would mean there were prior moments in time leading up to me sitting. This is NOT the case, because if i never BEGAN to sit, there isn't any moments leading to it. If you think this is the case, then explain to me how many moments passed leading up to me standing up??? I will wait.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

My point was simply that you were asking for something that was impossible, but not for the reasons you think.

Huh?

Yes, you are asserting this, but you still haven't said why someone why you are equating a changeless state with atemporality. This argument that someone doing nothing must be somehow not involve time, or even could, doesn't seem to be based on anything.

Because, change requires time. It is an action. So if God was changeless before creation, then he was atemporal, because change takes time and God was changeless. God was changeless and atemporal before creation, and temporal after creation. This argument is based on the fact that time could not have began to exist with the cause itself being temporal.

Your definition of time, as I said, merely requires the ability to distinguish points. A changless system or a particle whose state does not change still moves through time.

How could something that never began exist in time?? If there was no moment before, there could not be any moment after, because a moment after requires a moment before. The particle that you are refering to, if it exists within the universe, had a beginning, since the universe had a beginning. Even if it remained motionless SINCE the universe began, it is still temporal because it had a beginning. So if i was sitting in a chair for eternity, there was never a moment where i "began" to sit, so there cant be a moment "after" I sat (using "after" for simplicity reasons).

A key part of your argument seems to be this 1) equating changlessness with timelessness

Something that never changes cannot be temporal.

and 2) eternity with timelessness based on a dictionary. The problem, however, is that words are polysemous. They have multiple shades of meaning. However, context limits the range. For example, when I use the word "drive" in "work is driving me crazy" then it is quite clear I am being metaphorical, and not that something called work is moving me via vehicular transport to a location called crazy.

True. We use and define words based on context. We are talking about a word that has at least two different meanings, and I use the meaning based on which one describes the context of what the subject matter is. Nothing more, nothing less.

Likewise, eternity has shades of meaning, but when you say "sitting in a chair for eternity" you are using what can be called a temporal prepositional phrase. In English, when we want to express an extent of time, one way to do so is to use a VP followed by a PP, which consists of "for" plus something to indicate the duration of time.

We have to use a word to describe what we are talking about. We can either create a new word to describe it, or we can give a particular word an additional definition. The universe began to exist, and time began to exist along with it. There has to be a word to describe what it means to "create time", or better yet, the state of the causal agent that created time. Something that "creates" time cannot itself be in time. There has to be a word to describe this. It is inescapable. So we have good grounds in which we can give the word "eternal" an additional definition.

So, to answer your question-the reason is the that while timelessness can only indicate an abstract noun, eternity can indicate a duration of time. If you use the "doing X for Y" construction, where X is a VP, then what "Y" is in your construction can change the entire meaning. The other very common use of this construction is to indicate something done on another's behalf, e.g. "I'm doing this for love." If what you plug in for "Y" can mean either duration or an abstract noun, then you may have ambiguity. For example, "I'm fasting for today" usually refers to duration, but someone may say the same thing on a religious holiday or some other special occasion to indicate the reason they are fasting.

Irrelevance. The point I am making is, you cant put time on something that never began.

Using "timelessness" removes any possible ambiguity. It can't refer to duration.

Exactly, and I never used the term to refer to duration, since duration requires time.

So when you plug it into the construction, it can only mean "I'm sitting on behalf of/because of timelessness." However, when you say "I'm sitting for eternity" it either means you are sitting for an eternal duration of time, or you are sitting for the sake of/ on behalf of eternity.

So, explain to me, once again, if I have been sitting for eternity, how many moments is that? If i never began to sit, there are no moments leading up to my sitting. There is no "before i began" in any way, shape, or form. Since there was no moment before, there cannot be any moment after. So explain this please. I have been asking this for the longest.

The latter option makes little or no sense in almost any context. The natural interpretation of "I'm sitting for eternity" is durational. In other words, you are sitting for an eternal duration of time. That's what this construction means.

Thats what it CAN mean, depending on which definition you use. I am using the other definition. Think about it, my wife has never been to China before. So if she never went to China, there was never a moment "before" she went to China. BTW, I just out of the blue asked her "Hey Bae, before you went to China, what country did you come from?"....her response..."I aint never been to China". Do you see how that works?? If she never been to china, there could not have been a moment "before" she went to China. And based on that, there cannot be a moment after she went to China. This is the SAME case with God and time.

You can't argue it means something else by pointing to a different dictionary definition, any more than I can argue that "driving somebody crazy" refers to something to do with a car because that's in the dictionary.

I can use the defintion that is in line with the context. "Driving somebody crazy" is not in the context of utilizing a vehicle.

Sure there are. The number line extends infinitely in both directions, but there are still points. Likewise, if you have been doing something "for eternity" then I can distinguish points in time in the same way.

So, if you placed a number on each of the points, and you took away all of the even number points, and left all of the odd number points, how many points would you have of both??? Look, an actual infinity is just a concept, it cannot exist in reality. Yes, we can use it as a idea, but when you plug it in to reality, you are left with absurdities, and absurdities cannot exist in reality.

However, the real problem is, as I said, that "doing X for enternity" cannot refer to "timelessness."

Well, regardless of whether you want to use the word "eternal" to mean timelessness or not, the concept is the same.

The construction is a durational one. And since the duration is infinite, you can't stand up. If you do, then you didn't sit for eternity.

If there was never a "before" or "after", how is that duration? The concept of duration alone requires there to be a before and after.

So your whole "sitting in a chair" argument relies on a misuse of a word because you didn't/don't realize you can't simply plug definitions of words into constructions from a dictionary.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I am not misusing the word. I didn't make up the definition. The definition perfectly describes the state of the first cause.

Again, why must there be a cause?

Because everything that begins to exist has a cause, unless one is willing to entertain the thought of things popping in to being uncaused out of nothing (shawn)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It's a freaking analogy. Don't get so caught up in semantics! "0" was just used to show the present, negative is the past, and positive is the future.

The analogy has to be logical. How can 0 represent the present moment when the present moment is constantly changing to a different point??

Okay. That makes sense. But the point I was trying to make still stands; there was no "sooner" or "later." You could look at it as being simultaneous. That isn't completely accurate, but it makes it easier to comprehend.

Huh?

Okay. I'll admit you were right on this. I had thought wrong on the definition of timelessness. Neither of these words is a good description for the singularity. It was not eternal or timeless. It was just without time.

The singularity was simulatenous with the creation of time. It began to exist at the same point that time began to exist.

 

[Koldo]

You are begging the question by assuming time before time. Present would mean there were prior moments in time leading up to me sitting. This is NOT the case, because if i never BEGAN to sit, there isn't any moments leading to it. If you think this is the case, then explain to me how many moments passed leading up to me standing up??? I will wait.

I am not assuming time before time. :sarcastic
In fact, what i am saying is that you are the one considering the present as being existent before time.
I am saying it is impossible to 'sit' ( and to 'stay sitting' ) in timelessness because this action can only be performed in the present. If there is no time, there is no present. If there is no present, you can't sit.