Klaplunk Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 How can God exist without time? Impossible, a thought or movement requires time - an action requires time. Therefore any God is time, as to create or be created the essense of time is required. We exist between time, never able to reach the future, never able to reach the past. Example: [] = time. [ us ] not: us [ ] not: [ ] us We are always in the present. We move and age, time doesn't. The earth spins and rotates, time doesn't. Everything equates to 0. Only 1 type of singularity exists, black holes. The black hole makes everything tick. Time is God, and time created the universe. Discuss.
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 How can God exist without space? Impossible, a thought or movement requires space - an action requires space. Therefore any God is space, as to create or be created the essense of space is required. We exist between forward and backwards, never able to reach infront, never able to reach behind. Example: [] = infront and behind. [ us ] not: us [ ] not: [ ] us We are always in the here. We move and age, space doesn't. The earth spins and rotates, space doesn't. Everything equates to 0. Only 1 type of singularity exists, black holes. The black hole makes everything tick. space is God, and space created the universe. Discuss. --------------------------------------------- Everyone you said is meaningless. You make a logical jump without grounds in the first line, saying that god is time. Black holes are not the only sigularity, and signularities mean the physics doesn't work, we are missing something, it is most likely that at some time in the future we will fill in the bit of missing information and the singularity will vanish. To add we know that space and time are pretty much the same thing and one can be rotated into each other.
Klaplunk Posted July 28, 2010 Author Posted July 28, 2010 I said "How can God exist without time?" A thought requires time. A movement requires time. Base 10 relates to Base 2. I'll let you work out how yourselves.
Sayonara Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 This is the speculations forum. Which of your assertions and or questions are a speculation?
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I know how base 10 relates to base 2, or base 13 or base 148752, it doesn't make any of your points any more meaningful.
Klaplunk Posted July 28, 2010 Author Posted July 28, 2010 Well we use base 10. And base 10 is composed of base 2 numbers. It's a speculation on how time is God. It is a not only a question, but logically correct. We all do exist between opposites, and we are essentially opposites. The 'big bang' itself requires time? Correct? So without time the 'big bang' could not of happened. Essentially, this speculation, using logic, explains that Time created the universe. But we don't use base 13, or base 148+, do we?
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Base 10 is not comprised if base 2 numbers in any different way than any other number base pair. They are different ways of representing the same information. We use base ten because we have ten fingers
Klaplunk Posted July 28, 2010 Author Posted July 28, 2010 We have 8 fingers. 2 Oposable thumbs. But, that's 4 fingers on each hand, and 1 thumb on each hand - does that not come into context?
Mr Skeptic Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 Well we use base 10. And base 10 is composed of base 2 numbers. Is that 10 base 10, or 10 base 2, or 10 base 5, or 10 base 1403893838? Regardless of how many numbers in our base system, in its own system it will be the base 10 system, 10 being the first two-digit number in it.
rigney Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) I said "How can God exist without time?" A thought requires time. A movement requires time. Base 10 relates to Base 2. I'll let you work out how yourselves. Have you ever considered "Quantum Teleportation"? A thought has to be transcribed. Movement, must be choreographed. Each of the two take time. "IF" God exists, don't you think he would have considered our motives for asking such questions? Where is Occams razor when you need it? Edited July 28, 2010 by rigney
Klaplunk Posted July 28, 2010 Author Posted July 28, 2010 (edited) My point is, IF God exists, then God would require TIME in existence alongside him/herself. To exist, you are living, you are existing, therefore time is required. If something exists then that something will be occuring - so time is essential for any God. Therefore, if God does exist, it MUST be time, otherwise it cannot exist. Do you see my point? The fact of this is, people worship God, and science is the opposite, science repents God. I think that rather than repent/worship we should try to prove God exists. If science is correct, where does it lead us? Advancement, but when we die we're still dead? Wouldn't it be a better life if everyone knew when they died it was not the end, and people just essentially lived? I would consider myself a God-Scientist, seeing as I'm trying to prove God exists, and I'm not relying on a educated image. I haven't essentially proved God exists, but I've already over the space of two weeks gave some good logical reasons as to God, and what God could have been interpreted like years ago. Do you agree that many years ago, the image of God could have been time? Rather than the image we are taught now-a-days? Edited July 28, 2010 by Klaplunk
Klaynos Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 The distinction of fingers and thumbs being separate is completely unimportant to the development of number systems.
ajb Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 My point is, IF God exists, then God would require TIME in existence alongside him/herself. To exist, you are living, you are existing, therefore time is required. If something exists then that something will be occuring - so time is essential for any God. Therefore, if God does exist, it MUST be time, otherwise it cannot exist. Do you see my point? However, God (or Gods) are outside the realm of our natural world, and there for why do we make the assumption that they require anything from our physical world? Time, space or anything else. The fact of this is, people worship God, and science is the opposite, science repents God. However, I know scientists that are religious. I think that rather than repent/worship we should try to prove God exists. Great, let us know how you get on. If science is correct, where does it lead us? I would say to the truth, even if the truth is uncomfortable. Advancement, but when we die we're still dead? Wouldn't it be a better life if everyone knew when they died it was not the end, and people just essentially lived? Maybe. I think that accepting we have finite time in existence can spur one on in living life as best as one can. I would consider myself a God-Scientist, seeing as I'm trying to prove God exists, and I'm not relying on a educated image. I haven't essentially proved God exists, but I've already over the space of two weeks gave some good logical reasons as to God, and what God could have been interpreted like years ago. Well, by God-Scientist you must mean a theologian. I believe it is possible to approach any question which a scientific mindset, even if the question is outside of science. Do you agree that many years ago, the image of God could have been time? Rather than the image we are taught now-a-days? The images of God as an old man with a big beard represents the wisdom and leadership of elders. God is then understood in a human context to be the oldest and wisest. 1
Klaplunk Posted July 29, 2010 Author Posted July 29, 2010 I think that's a fair way to put things - I can't argue with that. If however time wasn't just relative to space, and was a part of everything, a God figure would have to abide by these rules also, as to move, think or create the God would require time. That's an IF I can't prove, hopefully someone else can. For now it's just speculation until the concept of time is understood further.
Mr Skeptic Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 If there is a god outside of our dimension, as an intelligent entity he would need time for thinking with, but there need be no relation between his time and ours. Much like if you are outside of the dimensions of an object that object's dimension of time won't apply to you (think of yourself looking at a graph with a time axis, are you constrained by that time axis?)
Klaplunk Posted July 29, 2010 Author Posted July 29, 2010 I'm not sure what you mean. If we're examining the graph, then it is in our dimension no?
vuquta Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 However, God (or Gods) are outside the realm of our natural world, and there for why do we make the assumption that they require anything from our physical world? Time, space or anything else. However, I know scientists that are religious. Great, let us know how you get on. I would say to the truth, even if the truth is uncomfortable. Maybe. I think that accepting we have finite time in existence can spur one on in living life as best as one can. Well, by God-Scientist you must mean a theologian. I believe it is possible to approach any question which a scientific mindset, even if the question is outside of science. The images of God as an old man with a big beard represents the wisdom and leadership of elders. God is then understood in a human context to be the oldest and wisest. It would appear as if you understand the origin of the universe what is it?
ajb Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 It would appear as if you understand the origin of the universe what is it? Not at all. However I am not going to give up and just state "God did it".
rigney Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) My point is, IF God exists, then God would require TIME in existence alongside him/herself. To exist, you are living, you are existing, therefore time is required. If something exists then that something will be occuring - so time is essential for any God. Therefore, if God does exist, it MUST be time, otherwise it cannot exist. Do you see my point? The fact of this is, people worship God, and science is the opposite, science repents God. I think that rather than repent/worship we should try to prove God exists. If science is correct, where does it lead us? Advancement, but when we die we're still dead? Wouldn't it be a better life if everyone knew when they died it was not the end, and people just essentially lived? I would consider myself a God-Scientist, seeing as I'm trying to prove God exists, and I'm not relying on a educated image. I haven't essentially proved God exists, but I've already over the space of two weeks gave some good logical reasons as to God, and what God could have been interpreted like years ago. Do you agree that many years ago, the image of God could have been time? Rather than the image we are taught now-a-days? Perhaps God is something like gravity? We have concocted many theories and stories explaining these two mysteries. But while there is something phenonenal in both that can be felt, no one can honestly explain either. And time? Time is only relevant to a particular event. Are God and gravity full time events? Edited July 30, 2010 by rigney
Klaplunk Posted July 30, 2010 Author Posted July 30, 2010 True. Gravity is literally what keeps everything together. The attraction, the spin, everything. Maybe gravity and 'time' aren't so different. Is it fair to say that without Gravity there would not be time?
rigney Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 True. Gravity is literally what keeps everything together. The attraction, the spin, everything. Maybe gravity and 'time' aren't so different. Is it fair to say that without Gravity there would not be time? Believe me, without what "we describe" as gravity; time would not be relative to me, you or anything else as we know it.
DJBruce Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 The fact of this is, people worship God, and science is the opposite, science repents God. A belief in science, and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive things. There are and have been numerous scientist past and present who believe in the value and importance of science, yet simultaneously believe in the existence of God. Just a couple that come of the top of my head include: Sir Isac Newton Micheal Faraday Copernicus Georges Lemaitre Albert Einstein True. Gravity is literally what keeps everything together. The attraction, the spin, everything. Maybe gravity and 'time' aren't so different. Is it fair to say that without Gravity there would not be time? I hope you realize that this statement is completely and utterly false. Gravity does not keep everything together. The protons and neutrons of the nucleus are kept together by the strong force, as are the quarks and gluons which comprise these particles. No without gravity there would be time.
vuquta Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 Not at all. However I am not going to give up and just state "God did it". LOL
Klaplunk Posted July 31, 2010 Author Posted July 31, 2010 (Gravity + Light)^2 = Universe That's why you can predict the alignment, and relate our day cycle to the original binary.
Sayonara Posted August 1, 2010 Posted August 1, 2010 (Gravity + Light)^2 = Universe That's why you can predict the alignment, and relate our day cycle to the original binary. Please provide some observed evidence which conforms with the proposed formula (Gravity + Light)^2 = Universe. No member of staff will approve your comments in this thread if they do not contain a valid response.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now