The Issue About Time and Space

radarmark said:
Depends on what you me by "I",
You see "I" as some existing being
and
I see "I" as a tread of events in space-time.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Ergo, might I proclaim that 'Transcendence is a Myth'? or 'Transcendence is Relative-Only'?

That, We temporal Persons with an ego-based POV are mythic events en-mass enscounced in an impersonal machine life in a biological pool ---Only?

Sad, yes; but worse, it existence is purposeless in its constitution ---The whole cosmic creation thus is not even a "pastime" nor goal-full processes ----

OTOH, the 'creation' cycle of the seasons yield repeat debuts of newbies on every stratum of .......... of Life.

Life arrives to live a life so as to __(_Fill in Blank )__ ?


radarmark said:
tread of events in space-time.:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

'Treading' toward what is whom?

Is "Purpose" precluded from "Existence"?

radarmark said:
Yep, either way flotsom floating in space!:D
Click to expand...

Floatsom in the "Vaccum" where
No two bits of Floatsom
can occupy the same space
at the same time :D:D:D:D:D????????

---would those be absolute rules?
 
bhaktajan said:
Is "Purpose" precluded from "Existence"?
Click to expand...
Of course, not. Purpose is in-built in existence, otherwise there would have been no existence. It is continuation of the species and evolution (we might not have nails in future generations and just 28 teeth may suffice).
 
No, purpose and value are very much part of the Kosmos. And Transcendence transcends the Kosmos (that which is) by being "Beyond".

Hint this is why I am a panentheist. G!D infuses the Kosmos and in some real way is the substance of the Kosmos (both physical and mental/spiritual). But part of G!D (the Transcendent) is not of the Kosmos, but "Beyond".
 
radarmark said:
in some real way
Click to expand...

What is your personal view on, "What is Real"?

Which part/aspect of the Cosmos is "Real"?

Yes, I am indeed familiar with the illusory aspect of reality.


TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

BTW, the word 'Maya' ['that which is not']; also means, 'Mine all there is'.

Also, I have been told that it means, 'mercy'.
 
Yes... something I cannot "prove" (the proof would be beyond phsics or any empirical method, I believe:confused:). "Reality" is a tricky notion... suffice it to say it is what exists, and in my view it includes matter, mental stuff, and perhaps spirit:rolleyes:. But the spirit part could easily be "that beyond". In which case one could consider "Maya" everything material and mental. And "Brahmin" everything that is Maya plus the spirit. I just do not know.:eek:

But, that would make sense both in terms of "thou art that" and "not this, not that:eek:". I do not claim to be Hindu or Vedantic...I am just interpreting for my little monkey-mind.:D
 
Etu Malku said:
The metaphysics of eternity might be summarized by the question: can anything be said to exist "outside of" or independent of Time/Space, and if so how and why? Some consequential metaphysical questions of some importance are then: can "information" be said to exist without, or independent of, the human mind, and, if so, what would be the content and "purpose" of such information?

Here is a perfect example of the Subjective Universe I 'endlessly' babble about. This universe is not part of the material/physical universe, this universe contains the material/physical Objective Universe.
Click to expand...

Yes, Malku, even if you find my reply too childish, I'll venture to let it go: God. Not the literal god of anthropomorphic interpretations, but the Spiritual God that we cannot conceive through our senses, but that, somehow, we are aware of. The Primal Mover of the Phisolophers.

Ben
 
Ben Masada said:
THE ISSUE ABOUT TIME AND SPACE

Nothing existed before something started to exist. BTW, time and space do not exist. They are accidents of matter.

Space is the distance between matter and matter. Considering that matter was created, there was no space before matter. Where there is no matter, there is nothing. Vacuum, is the word.

How about time? There is no time. Time is an accident of motion. For instance, put a marble ball on the top of a hill and tell me how long it takes for that marble to reach the base of the hill. You don't know. Why? Because the marble is in the state of inertia. There is no time while matter is in the state of inertia. You have got to push that marble down the hill to know how long it will take for it to reach the base of the hill. It means that time is measured by motion. Without motion, there is no time. Time is the biproduct of matter in motion. Bottom line: There is no space without matter and there is no time if matter does not move.

There was no time nor space before the universe was created. The universe is composed of matter. And time and space are accidents of matter.

Time and space became a constant after the creation of the universe. They do not exist by themselves. They are abstract concepts, relative to the existence of matter.

There is no such a thing as "always exists" about matter, and for that matter, about man. Only God always exists. And focus that the verb is in the present tense and not in the past; and it can neither be in the future.

An atheist asked me that if things were created out of nothing where did nothing come from? That's the kind of question which constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of the questioner but also to that of the one who must answer. Aristotle said, in other words, that only nothing comes out of nothing. And I add to it, by the will of man or of nature. And here is where we must start our research about the origin of things on the basis of the concept of probability that everything is possible.

Albert Einstein was once asked if he believed in God. He answered and said that all his life was trying to catch God at His work of creation. He was referring to the expansion of the universe, which could very well be God at His work of creation. (Psalm 19:1) Probability is the word. Nobody is sure of anything about issues of billions of years ago. So, it could have been this or that way.

Ben
Click to expand...

Zurvan was an androgynous deity who represented to space and time. Who first came up with the idea of space and time?
 
radarmark said:
And "Brahmin" everything that is Maya plus the spirit. I just do not know.:eek:

But, that would make sense both in terms of "thou art that" and "not this, not that:eek:". I do not claim to be Hindu or Vedantic...I am just interpreting for my little monkey-mind.:D
Click to expand...
Brāhman/Brāhmin (a little incorrectly, to differentiate from Brahman) - preistly class
Brahman - Supreme soul for some, what all exists for others.
Māyā - The effect of existence (inadequate senses, incorrect perceptions, we do not see atoms - as if they existed).
'Thou art that' (Tat twam asi - joined Tatwamasi) - non-duality, you are what all exists.
'Neti-neti' - do not qualify (or you would be in error). It is heat, light, electricity, magnetism, gravity, time, mass, space, or what all one can think about (dark matter, dark energy). :)
 
Ben Masada said:
.. but the Spiritual God that we cannot conceive through our senses, but that, somehow, we are aware of. The Primal Mover of the Philosophers.
Click to expand...
You are aware of God. People like me do not see any reason. The primal mover of philosophers is their upbringing, their training, education, experience, and not any God. So, William Lane Craig is a theist, Dawkins is an atheist (if you consider him to be a philosopher).
 
exile said:
Zurvan was an androgynous deity who represented to space and time. Who first came up with the idea of space and time?
Click to expand...
Shiva is 'Mahākāla' (Lord of Time). The sound of Shiva's rattle during his dance creates time (tāla - beat). :)

540369_164392823691558_405585629_n.jpg
 
exile said:
Zurvan was an androgynous deity who represented to space and time. Who first came up with the idea of space and time?
Click to expand...

So, what does Mythology has anything to do with the issue of this thread?

Ben
 
Aupmanyav said:
You are aware of God. People like me do not see any reason. The primal mover of philosophers is their upbringing, their training, education, experience, and not any God. So, William Lane Craig is a theist, Dawkins is an atheist (if you consider him to be a philosopher).
Click to expand...

Can they explain the Primal Mover in their philosophical aspirations? I don't think so. That's what I meant.

Regarding my awareness of God, yes, but on the basis of the concept of probability, as I am not 100% sure about anything.

When the David in 14:1 refers to as possessed with a foolish attitude, he means not only those who declare in their hearts that there is no God but also those, by the same token, who declare for sure the absolute existence of God. The word is probability. This concept teaches us to recede in our arrogant boldness to either confirm or discard anything for sure as if our word is as good as gold when we are sure of nothing.

Therefore, if William Lane Craig and Dawkins declare that the existence of God is impossible, they are nothing more than fools.

Ben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top