The extent of atheistic thought (scripture, believe, born, Jesus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
none of that is time. movement is activity.
that is not time.
Yes it is. The whole reason we have a sense of time is due to the changes around us. Every one of these changes occurs due to movement. Therefore, time is movement. No movement means a lack of a sense of time and vice-versa.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck.
Yes it is. The whole reason we have a sense of time is due to the changes around us. Every one of these changes occurs due to movement. Therefore, time is movement. No movement means a lack of a sense of time and vice-versa. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck.
an inability to understand how time is artificial and does not exist,
is an indicator of lack of ability for abstract thinking.
"Abstract thinking is the ability to consider concepts beyond what we observe physically. Recognizing patterns, analyzing ideas, synthesizing information, solving problems, and creating things all involve abstract thinking. Abstract thought is usually defined alongside its opposite: concrete thinking. Concrete thinking is connected closely to objects and experiences that can be directly observed."
an inability to understand how time is artificial and does not exist,
is an indicator of lack of ability for abstract thinking.
"Abstract thinking is the ability to consider concepts beyond what we observe physically. Recognizing patterns, analyzing ideas, synthesizing information, solving problems, and creating things all involve abstract thinking. Abstract thought is usually defined alongside its opposite: concrete thinking. Concrete thinking is connected closely to objects and experiences that can be directly observed."
Abstract thinking is not congruent with wild thinking. Two very different things.
Kepp hiding behind your atheist-friendly rule and ignore that your natural processes REQUIRE Nature which is nothing but a different label for the ineffable source of existence.
Natural forces do not require nature, they are nature. They are simply the properties and behaviors of existence. They are not the source of existence, they are how our existence behaves, with no need for an intelligence to explain them or guide them.
an inability to understand how time is artificial and does not exist,
is an indicator of lack of ability for abstract thinking.
"Abstract thinking is the ability to consider concepts beyond what we observe physically. Recognizing patterns, analyzing ideas, synthesizing information, solving problems, and creating things all involve abstract thinking. Abstract thought is usually defined alongside its opposite: concrete thinking. Concrete thinking is connected closely to objects and experiences that can be directly observed."
I looked at this, and some people do argue that movement is an improper definition of time. I'm not sure they're correct yet. I'll think about this further.
Regardless of whether or not time is best defined as movement...almost nobody there is saying that time doesn't exist though. One person does say it doesn't exist...but he's referring to a certain context. It clearly exists, in at least some contexts, or else we wouldn't experience it, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is ignoring what society has determined time to be.
I looked at this, and some people do argue that movement is an improper definition of time. I'm not sure they're correct yet. I'll think about this further.
Regardless of whether or not time is best defined as movement...almost nobody there is saying that time doesn't exist though. One person does say it doesn't exist...but he's referring to a certain context. It clearly exists, in at least some contexts, or else we wouldn't experience it, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is ignoring what society has determined time to be.
Going back to this again
I would have complete control over time if I had complete control over movement. With complete control over movement, I would be able to turn back time. I could speed time up. I could age people faster or slower, etc.
However, if I had a complete control over time I would not have a complete control over movement. That's because movement involves aspects such as direction and distance and other factors not involved with time.
Therefore, time is a part of movement. Therefore time exists, but I was wrong about time being movement.
There are lots of people who argue that time might not exist. What is relevant is the context they're talking about, not the statement itself, which is pretty meaningless without context.
one is an absence (it does not exist).
the other is an abundance (it goes on and on and on and on)
there is no way the absence of something anything can be said to be the same as an abundance of something.
an absence of something is not the same as something that goes on and on and on.
picture a line that goes on and on in both directions. you could say that line "is without an end."
now picture a dot, and erase the dot. the dot is gone. there is no dot. there is an absence.
a dot that is not there can not be said to be the same as a long long line that extends in both directions a long long way.
yes, that's why I used both both notions. "timeless" and "without end".
Your abundance analogy is based on how you set it up. "without end" doesn't have to mean "abundance". For example, one photon. It could be without end, but only one of them is not what I would consider abundant. Unless you meant "without end" as "absence". Then I am not sure what that means past absence of an end.
"time", I wouldn't classify it as either absence or abundance. I could use those words in describing what we call time.
"without end", taken as an absolute, is blind faith. It might be right, it doesn't have to be a defining characteristic.
I would have complete control over time if I had complete control over movement. With complete control over movement, I would be able to turn back time. I could speed time up. I could age people faster or slower, etc.
However, if I had a complete control over time I would not have a complete control over movement. That's because movement involves aspects such as direction and distance and other factors not involved with time.
Therefore, time is a part of movement. Therefore time exists, but I was wrong about time being movement.
There are lots of people who argue that time might not exist. What is relevant is the context they're talking about, not the statement itself, which is pretty meaningless without context.
I would be careful using that discussion on time. Its true that physics doesn't "know" what it is. In fact, I think "dt" is what is holding us up. When we can describe something like speed without time, things like hours, we will make a big jump in closing some gaps. Like a singularity. The whole of the PT is partly based on, in large part, momentum. Momentum has a velocity component witch needs a time component. Which is based on "your movement".
So it kind of is a circle proof when looking at time.
We have no other basis for it other than movement. As I think you are using the word "movement" anyway. "dt", is sort of like a mathematical trick to me. For example speed, an object went [this] far in [that] many "ticks" of this machine. The "ticks" of the machine is what we call time. "time" isn't causing the ticks of the machine. Then just sub in the "ticks" for a variable or set the variable to the ticks.
I would say you don't have control of '"time", you have control over the movement. You "move" the objects in the exact same path backwards and it looks like time is going in reverse.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 06-30-2021 at 05:16 AM..
The label Nature would only apply to the generic EXISTENCE of the ineffable source of existence and those who use it or prefer it would be Pagans. But those of us who use the label God have many different concepts and contexts that define our God. Mine would be Christian as I define it, NOT as it is traditionally conceived.
Would it be safe to assume your God is the Old Testament one as I notice you do not use Jesus in your posts, or the divine father of Jesus? Would you ever place God and Nature on equal plane, or allowing a concept where Mother Nature is God's wife, each conceived/derived by separate sources in a fully liberated and equal marriage?
Or would your stance be that nature and the natural world was created by God, placing mother nature by default into a subordinate position given it is(was) a creation of God?
Last edited by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?; 06-30-2021 at 06:38 AM..
Reason: Spelling Error
Would it be safe to assume your God is the Old Testament one as I notice you do not use Jesus in your posts, or the divine father of Jesus? Would you ever place God and Nature on equal plane, or allowing a concept where Mother Nature is God's wife, each conceived/derived by separate sources in a fully liberated and equal marriage?
Or would your stance be that nature and the natural world was created by God, placing mother nature by default into a subordinate position given it is(was) a creation of God?
There is only one God and it is the one revealed and unambiguously demonstrated by Jesus, NOT the one believed in by our ignorant, primitive ancestors. If I had to characterize Mother Nature, it would be the Earth as described in Revelation 12:1,
. . . And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out in her travail and was in the anguish of delivery.
Earth is our Mother and God is our Father and we are their offspring with Jesus being the Firstborn Spirit Son of God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
