Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (19083)	1/5/2005 9:35:37 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Proof is a nonsense word in the context of what is and isn't, but I offer this logical explanation. You are asking me about eternity. Not whether it exists as a reality but whether my comment on it rings true under scrutiny. If you choose to employ the word 'eternity' then you must recognize that you are using a term that specifically means without an end point. If you prefer to think of eternity as time that goes on and on forever, ok but there are other ways to consider the matter. I will start with the presumption of time that goes on forever. The idea of linear time that goes on forever has some problems. First there is no way to have a direct experience with history. We have books and other ways to recollect the past but we are always in the present moment when doing so. Similarly, there is no way to have a direct experience with the future. We can have hopes, dreams, plans and expectations of the future but they are constantly being worked out in the present. So, as a rational issue we can refer to things we call 'past' as past-present, since we experience them only as present. And, future-present for our ideas of the future. So lets look at the past-present. How do we measure what was before now? We find evidence of previous forms, right? We then find evidence of forms or states of things that existed prior to our recorded past. As we do, we determine a state of existence that was before and one that was before that and before that, etc. At some point we run out of solid evidence so we speculate based on patterns we have found that there was a before the before up until the 'beginning'. If you think we live in an eternal universe then you begin speculating what caused or came before the 'beginning' (like a bang or something). So, you lose your beginning with other beginnings that went on before the beginning on an ongoing basis. At some point with this rationale, we can accept that time is composed of unending before the before's. If not we lose the concept of eternity and we have an actual starting place in which nothing existed before and everything came from this nothing point of beginning. If you do that you have the age old assumptions to make about creation of something that we now call our universe. In any case, you also have the paradox that is apparent between a universe which, by all evidence, is composed as a temporal realm juxtaposed with the concept of eternity which defies the notion of the temporary. When you begin to figure the linear nature of time you have the additional quandary about experience only existing in the present moment. Digest this much and post whatever challenges or questions you have. Then I will attempt to answer or go on with part II.