It is said that God has always existed. I have no problem with that. But it seems to me that we need a starting point. A starting point does not mean that God came into existence. It just mean that God was standing at a starting point. From there God could move forward - but not backwards. Because there was nothing to move backwards to. So we have God standing at a starting point and the future knocking on the door.
There are those who think God can keep on moving back in time...yesterday I did this and the day before I did this and so on. But that makes no sense to me.
Because...Well...I just think it makes no sense.
I can´t put my finger on it, so...?
Do we need a starting point?
I think there was a starting point and from there we can move forward and only when we have move forward then we can move backwards 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 -8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 <---- past and future ----> 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 -20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 <---- past and future ----> 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 -33 -34 -35 -36 -37 -38 -39 and so on forever.
How are we to understand things?
I am a simple man. Everybody call me nice. But I know myself. I am not Nelson Mandela or Gandhi. I am something between Hitler and Jesus. I would problely take a bullet for you...but still...I am not a saint in no way. I have not come to die for you. And you have not come to die for me. We are here to talk about things.
Do you know anything about life?
I like Divine Insight and many others (tam)...when I compare myself to them I felll small. I do not understand all the things they say and I do not live my life the way they do. That is a fact. Maybe I am wicked. But I have no problem taking that position. Do you love me? If you love me then you would try to get me back on the train. The love train. What is love?
It is funny that I - a sinner - should teach you about love - is it not?
Life is still a mystery.
In the beginning...
Moderator: Moderators
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: In the beginning...
Post #2You OP seems to be covering many different philosophical issues.
I'll be glad to offer my views on them.
However, this problem only arises becasue we think of "time" as having an arrow that flows from past to future. This kind of time is actually a property of our physical universe and arose with our universe. We call this property of time "entropy". Or to put that another way, the property of entropy is what gives time its arrow. Time prior to the existence of our universe most likely also existed, but it would be a different kind of time. It would have been a state of dynamic change that has no entropy. In other words, there would be no way to remember any past events. Therefore it would be meaningless to even speak about a past in any meaningful way.
For this reason time that does not include a property of entropy would have no "starting point". Or to put that another way, every single point in this time would be the "starting point". There is no past, or future when in this state. Only when a universe arises that has a property of entropy does this dynamic change become directional and begin to "wind-down" from a starting point to an end point.
This is a topic that everyone has intuitive problems with and this is because our intuition is based on our experience of time that is driven by entropy.
But in short, the solution to your problem is entropy, or a lack of it. So that would be the topic you'd want to look into if you want to better understand why time without entropy has no need for a "beginning" or "end'. Every point in time without entropy is the "Starting Point". There is no past or future without entropy.
I feel the same way. It's difficult for me to understand why some people seem to prefer to be destructive. There are psychological answers to these questions however. Often times a destructive person is the way they are because they feel that they have been unfairly treated by others. So they motivation to cause harm to others is driven by resentment and revenge.
Other causes seem to be due to mental impairments. Some people seem to have brains that are wired with a complete lack of, and inability to feel, empathy for others. So these people don't even truly understand the harm they are inflicting upon others. They simply don't identify with the pain and suffering of others. They are incapable of empathy. We could say that this is a "defect" in brain wiring. But that itself is a desire to believe that a "properly wired" brain should be able to process empathy. Although this seems like a reasonable expectation.
Another cause of harmful behavior can be anger, selfishness, jealous, etc. I think we have all done things in a state of anger that we later wish we hadn't done. So understanding how this works is something that most of us have direct experience with. In other words, harm and destructive behavior can often be driven purely by unchecked emotions.
Finally, there are people who harm others simply because they have been convinced that what they are doing is the right thing to do for some higher cause. A suicide bomber is a good example of this. They actually believe that what they are doing is right. They have been convinced that the people they are killing or harming deserve to be killed or harmed.
So that's how we understand these things. Understanding them doesn't make them anymore pleasant to have to live with. But we can still understand them none the less.
I personally define love as simply caring for the welfare of others. If you care about the welfare of another person, then you love them. I actually care about the welfare of everyone, so in this sense it could be said that I love everyone. Even those who harm others, because I even care about their welfare.
However, there are certainly different levels of love, even using the above definition.
Caring about the welfare of others is one thing, going out of our way to attend to the welfare of others is another.
You mentioned activists like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi, etc. Clearly those people's love for others was so powerful that they gave their own lives in an effort to help others. This is a far greater love than I care to exercise.
I just have no interest in trying to save humanity from itself. It's just not my thing. I think one of the reasons for this is that I don't feel responsibility for the existence of humanity. I didn't' create humans and therefore I have no reason to save them.
Some religions have their creator God trying to save humans. But this would actually be something I would expect from any responsible God. If they created humans then it's totally on their shoulders to save humans. That's a responsibility I would certainly accept is I were the creator of humans.
But as it is, I don't feel an overwhelming responsibility to save humans from themselves. I'm certainly willing to do whatever I can from a practical point of view, but I'm not going to dedicate my entire life to trying to save humans from themselves.
You had mentioned Nelson Mandela or Gandhi. Well, they certainly made waves in history to be sure. But have they truly changed humanity for the better? I'm afraid that if they have it has been a very small amount. The nasty things that corrupt governments do appears to still be marching forward in spite of these humanitarian activists.
So I'm not sold on the idea that activism has any practical value actually.
Look at Martin Luther King Jr. in the USA. He dedicated his life for human rights and racial equality. He was shot and killed in his efforts to peacefully stand up against these injustices.
Yet long after he had died, racial injustice continues on to this very day. He may have become a famous historical figure in the fight for civil rights and equality, but did he have any actual impact on the reality of the situation. Apparently not.
Although, people today can point back to his efforts and use him as a stepping stone to continue to march down that path. So I wouldn't say that his efforts were totally in vain. But they most certainly didn't eradicate the problem.
I'll be glad to offer my views on them.
Your first question is a question of the "Physics of God". In other words, you are asking how it could be physical (or logically) possible for a God to stretch eternally into the past. This does indeed present us with a problem. I agree.Waterfall wrote: Do we need a starting point?
However, this problem only arises becasue we think of "time" as having an arrow that flows from past to future. This kind of time is actually a property of our physical universe and arose with our universe. We call this property of time "entropy". Or to put that another way, the property of entropy is what gives time its arrow. Time prior to the existence of our universe most likely also existed, but it would be a different kind of time. It would have been a state of dynamic change that has no entropy. In other words, there would be no way to remember any past events. Therefore it would be meaningless to even speak about a past in any meaningful way.
For this reason time that does not include a property of entropy would have no "starting point". Or to put that another way, every single point in this time would be the "starting point". There is no past, or future when in this state. Only when a universe arises that has a property of entropy does this dynamic change become directional and begin to "wind-down" from a starting point to an end point.
This is a topic that everyone has intuitive problems with and this is because our intuition is based on our experience of time that is driven by entropy.
But in short, the solution to your problem is entropy, or a lack of it. So that would be the topic you'd want to look into if you want to better understand why time without entropy has no need for a "beginning" or "end'. Every point in time without entropy is the "Starting Point". There is no past or future without entropy.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here exactly. By what you've written it appears that you are trying to understand why we are the way we are individually. Some of us are clearly more interested in positive constructive living, while others appear to have no problem causing harm and destruction.Waterfall wrote: How are we to understand things?
I am a simple man. Everybody call me nice. But I know myself. I am not Nelson Mandela or Gandhi. I am something between Hitler and Jesus. I would problely take a bullet for you...but still...I am not a saint in no way. I have not come to die for you. And you have not come to die for me. We are here to talk about things.
I feel the same way. It's difficult for me to understand why some people seem to prefer to be destructive. There are psychological answers to these questions however. Often times a destructive person is the way they are because they feel that they have been unfairly treated by others. So they motivation to cause harm to others is driven by resentment and revenge.
Other causes seem to be due to mental impairments. Some people seem to have brains that are wired with a complete lack of, and inability to feel, empathy for others. So these people don't even truly understand the harm they are inflicting upon others. They simply don't identify with the pain and suffering of others. They are incapable of empathy. We could say that this is a "defect" in brain wiring. But that itself is a desire to believe that a "properly wired" brain should be able to process empathy. Although this seems like a reasonable expectation.
Another cause of harmful behavior can be anger, selfishness, jealous, etc. I think we have all done things in a state of anger that we later wish we hadn't done. So understanding how this works is something that most of us have direct experience with. In other words, harm and destructive behavior can often be driven purely by unchecked emotions.
Finally, there are people who harm others simply because they have been convinced that what they are doing is the right thing to do for some higher cause. A suicide bomber is a good example of this. They actually believe that what they are doing is right. They have been convinced that the people they are killing or harming deserve to be killed or harmed.
So that's how we understand these things. Understanding them doesn't make them anymore pleasant to have to live with. But we can still understand them none the less.
What is love? That's a great question.Waterfall wrote: Do you know anything about life?
I like Divine Insight and many others (tam)...when I compare myself to them I felll small. I do not understand all the things they say and I do not live my life the way they do. That is a fact. Maybe I am wicked. But I have no problem taking that position. Do you love me? If you love me then you would try to get me back on the train. The love train. What is love?
It is funny that I - a sinner - should teach you about love - is it not?
Life is still a mystery.
I personally define love as simply caring for the welfare of others. If you care about the welfare of another person, then you love them. I actually care about the welfare of everyone, so in this sense it could be said that I love everyone. Even those who harm others, because I even care about their welfare.
However, there are certainly different levels of love, even using the above definition.
Caring about the welfare of others is one thing, going out of our way to attend to the welfare of others is another.
You mentioned activists like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi, etc. Clearly those people's love for others was so powerful that they gave their own lives in an effort to help others. This is a far greater love than I care to exercise.
I just have no interest in trying to save humanity from itself. It's just not my thing. I think one of the reasons for this is that I don't feel responsibility for the existence of humanity. I didn't' create humans and therefore I have no reason to save them.
Some religions have their creator God trying to save humans. But this would actually be something I would expect from any responsible God. If they created humans then it's totally on their shoulders to save humans. That's a responsibility I would certainly accept is I were the creator of humans.
But as it is, I don't feel an overwhelming responsibility to save humans from themselves. I'm certainly willing to do whatever I can from a practical point of view, but I'm not going to dedicate my entire life to trying to save humans from themselves.
You had mentioned Nelson Mandela or Gandhi. Well, they certainly made waves in history to be sure. But have they truly changed humanity for the better? I'm afraid that if they have it has been a very small amount. The nasty things that corrupt governments do appears to still be marching forward in spite of these humanitarian activists.
So I'm not sold on the idea that activism has any practical value actually.
Look at Martin Luther King Jr. in the USA. He dedicated his life for human rights and racial equality. He was shot and killed in his efforts to peacefully stand up against these injustices.
Yet long after he had died, racial injustice continues on to this very day. He may have become a famous historical figure in the fight for civil rights and equality, but did he have any actual impact on the reality of the situation. Apparently not.
Although, people today can point back to his efforts and use him as a stepping stone to continue to march down that path. So I wouldn't say that his efforts were totally in vain. But they most certainly didn't eradicate the problem.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: In the beginning...
Post #3Since you all yourself a simple man, I will approach this in a simplistic manner to begin with. First, this is a problem of Greek philosophy. Eastern philosophy, which includes Hebrew philosophy, does not address this, but accepts it as a given. So, let's look at your example.Waterfall wrote:
There are those who think God can keep on moving back in time...yesterday I did this and the day before I did this and so on. But that makes no sense to me.
In ancient times, there was not even a concept of zero. In fact, prior to HaTorah, time was considered to be circular. Every year was just a repeat of the previous one. One of the concepts presented in the Scriptures is that of linear time. 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, etc. There was no concept of zero time. "In the beginning" does not refer to a specific time, but is an accepted summary statement regarding all that had occured before. What went before was not important, because we live in the here and now.I think there was a starting point and from there we can move forward and only when we have move forward then we can move backwards 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 -8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 <---- past and future ----> 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 -20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 <---- past and future ----> 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 -33 -34 -35 -36 -37 -38 -39 and so on forever.
The introduction of the concept of zero was as revolutionary as was the introduction of linear time. Philosphically, it introduced the idea of thinking of that which does not exist. Before that, what did not exist was merely refered to as being "without form and void". The concept of zero then teased out the concept of the negative, or that which is less than zero. This concept made no sense to the ancients. Everything was stated in the positive. They did not understand how something can be less than nothing. This then gave rise to the interval, i.e. the space between numbers. For example, how many intervals are there between 1 and 2? This introduced the concept of the infinite, which was not a concern previously. And on and on it goes as one seeks to define all things.
Again, this is a problem of Greek philosophy, that seeks to define all things, Eastern philosophy does not seek to define all things, but rather to understand how things interact. So, to the Greek deities are finite, because the focus is on defining them. However, to the eastern mind, dieties can be infinite, because the focus is on how they relate to one another.
-
Waterfall
- Scholar
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:08 am
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: In the beginning...
Post #4[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
Hi DI
I just want to give you this:
Call it love or whatever you want - we could change the world And if tam was to come on this train of love who knows? But maybe she is to scared 
I am not scared of anything accept you 
Hi DI
I just want to give you this:
Call it love or whatever you want - we could change the world
And if tam was to come on this train of love who knows? But maybe she is to scared I am not scared of anything accept you 
Re: In the beginning...
Post #5I have a problem with it. It's ambiguous. Does it mean that god is infinite and unbegun, or does it just mean that god has existed for as long as time has?Waterfall wrote: It is said that God has always existed. I have no problem with that.
That's one of the possibilities.But it seems to me that we need a starting point.
Then the rest of the universe could also be started but unbegun.A starting point does not mean that God came into existence.
But a god who just popped into existence for no reason does make sense?It just mean that God was standing at a starting point. From there God could move forward - but not backwards. Because there was nothing to move backwards to. So we have God standing at a starting point and the future knocking on the door.
There are those who think God can keep on moving back in time...yesterday I did this and the day before I did this and so on. But that makes no sense to me.
I'm not preferring one theory over the other. I'm just pointing out that we don't get to say, "This one doesn't make sense to me, therefore that one must be true."
Bertrand Russell wrote that when the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to take a contrary position. And when the experts disagree, the layman does well not to take any position.Because...Well...I just think it makes no sense.
I can´t put my finger on it, so...?
Do we need a starting point?
I think there was a starting point and from there we can move forward and only when we have move forward then we can move backwards 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 -8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 <---- past and future ----> 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 -20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 <---- past and future ----> 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 -33 -34 -35 -36 -37 -38 -39 and so on forever.
How are we to understand things?
Unless you are yourself an expert, or are aware of a consensus of experts, the appropriate thing to do is just admit that you don't know how or whether the universe began.
There, that's the right attitude.... Life is still a mystery.
-
Waterfall
- Scholar
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:08 am
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: In the beginning...
Post #6[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]
I know - but I am drunk - and I have to think about what you and bluethread are saying....this is not a game...we can´t put a coin in the machine and start over
but maybe you like this:
Ps. I was responding to wiploc, so...
I know - but I am drunk - and I have to think about what you and bluethread are saying....this is not a game...we can´t put a coin in the machine and start over
but maybe you like this:Ps. I was responding to wiploc, so...
Re: In the beginning...
Post #8[Replying to post 1 by Waterfall]
in scripture it is stated that the God of Israel inhabits eternity. question is do we.
and in the case of eternity though our view is it involves time but in reality it doesn't because "in the beginning" is the beginning of what? and does that include time? also, time according to the same scripture ends, but God does not and He inhabits eternity. so God is before time and after time. though its a whole other can of worms, everything other than God needs or requires time to exist.
its been said that in beginning (time) God (something that started it) created (energy) the heavens (space) and earth (matter) whether that is a correct view or not is another matter.
it would seem we don't inhabit eternity seeing we are limited in scope and mind to time. if we inhabited something surly we would perceive it.
in scripture it is stated that the God of Israel inhabits eternity. question is do we.
and in the case of eternity though our view is it involves time but in reality it doesn't because "in the beginning" is the beginning of what? and does that include time? also, time according to the same scripture ends, but God does not and He inhabits eternity. so God is before time and after time. though its a whole other can of worms, everything other than God needs or requires time to exist.
its been said that in beginning (time) God (something that started it) created (energy) the heavens (space) and earth (matter) whether that is a correct view or not is another matter.
it would seem we don't inhabit eternity seeing we are limited in scope and mind to time. if we inhabited something surly we would perceive it.
-
Waterfall
- Scholar
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:08 am
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #9
As I see it there has always been something (because from nothing comes nothing).Walterbl wrote: I have to admit I am inable to wrap my mind around the notion of something "always existing". Liek how is that even possible? How can an atemporal God create? There would have to be a "before creation" and an "after creation.
I am a theist so for me the question is something like this:
Has God always been living on a spirituel planet or is it like this book tells us:
http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/
http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a00.htm
http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-a01.htm
http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-ko00.htm
http://uk.vandrermodlyset.dk/m-ko01.htm
I like this book but the decription of the universe in it...well...here I need help...is it possible to create a universe this way? If it is possible then we can move on and investigate our universe...does it look like this? Is there anything that points to this decription? Is this not the way to go about such things?
Ps. I would like to apologice for my drinking and writing. I wrote the first part about time and then I got drunk and wrote the rest. And now I am drinking again
But I am learning to keep it down. I just want to live a good life like the rest of you. Now I will watch some good music and forget about the past and the future and just be alive:
