Daviso452
Boy Genius
Think of it a compilation of all nerdy jokes in history. They've got a lot to work with.That Big Bang show is totally overrated. How many jokes about geeks playing rpg's can they possibly come up with?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Think of it a compilation of all nerdy jokes in history. They've got a lot to work with.That Big Bang show is totally overrated. How many jokes about geeks playing rpg's can they possibly come up with?
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.Infinity doesn't have to stretch in both directions.
I thought we already covered this. On what do you base this statement?With the singularity there was still time and still space it just wasn't space-time.
Well in order to distinguish something there has to be at least one other thing to compare it to. This is a requirement.
"But all the clocks in the cityAs I said before, once you become temporal, you are always temporal.
The same number of moments between me typingIf there was an preceding moment, tell me how many moments led up to me standing up??
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.
Well shoot, that's the first time in this entire thread you've said anything that's accurate! Grats.As i said, Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. Major Religions Ranked by Size, Major religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The price of being agnostic when it comes to just about everything.You will not take sides, will you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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??
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.
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."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?
We can call any time 0. People do it all the time.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.
Not really. Time was a huge problem for aristotle and remains one for formal logic even today.This is elementary logic and reasoning.
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.The only way out of this is to postulate a timeless cause, which is absolutely necessary.
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.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.
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.
We can call any time 0. People do it all the time.
Not really. Time was a huge problem for aristotle and remains one for formal logic even today.
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.
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.
It is the BEGINNING of the "moment set".
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-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.
I dont see the beef with timelessness. All I see is "you cant sit in a chair for timelessness." Back up the statement
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.But if I have been sitting still in a chair for eternity, there ARE NO two distinctive points.
Again, why must there be a 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.
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.Call of the Wild said: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.
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.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.
Thank you for using another source. I do recommend you provide a link to it in the future however.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.
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.
My point was simply that you were asking for something that was impossible, but not for the reasons you think.
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-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.
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.
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.
Again, why must there be a cause?
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.
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.
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.
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.