Freesoul's Paradox

[Texas_Roofer]

Of course time exists in nature. Anytime there is a “before” and an “after”, there is time. There is a moment before an atom in the Crab Nebula decays and a moment after it decays.

before what? (the decay) After what? (the decay) In general before the changes which placed us in this condition. AND after the changes to come

Time is a dimension. Mathematically, time and space are related.

this theory is based on the universe changing in size thus the amount of change could be tracked directly (your space) or indirectly through a human system ( your time)

(For that matter, the Pythogorean Theorum is true whether or not there are people to appreciate it or whether or not an actual right triangle exists anywhere in the universe. A2 + B2 = C2 is metaphysically true.)

It may be time to look at 3D modeling again, the Pythagorean Theorem only works in 2D. The world is 3D! Severely crown 2 sides of the triangle and try the model

 

[a_priori]

before what? (the decay) After what? (the decay) In general before the changes which placed us in this condition. AND after the changes to come this theory is based on the universe changing in size thus the amount of change could be tracked directly (your space) or indirectly through a human system ( your time) It may be time to look at 3D modeling again, the Pythagorean Theorem only works in 2D. The world is 3D! Severely crown 2 sides of the triangle and try the model

I don’t think we are in the same universe. (Your rolling smilies are real cute though…)

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

I once read that “Time is just the measurement of change” if this is true (which I think it is), then there could be no “TIME” before there was anything to measure i.e. creation; because before that there was only God, and He is unchanging.

 

[WSD]

Actually time does not exist in nature, what is experienced is change

Close
physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

Humanity has followed the pattern in Genesis of giving names to everything in nature and that makes up human experiance. But no matter how you slice it, time is the experiance of events in nature by people, thus if nature and her events were to end, so would time.
Take a step back and examine the Nature of Jesus in this.
The only begotten Son of God, yet eternally God. The only way this can be so would be for time to be tied to nature. Jesus is the first born, thus he exists before time, before nature.
Peace be with you

 

[john_doran]

I have been pondering a thought…

When we speak of beginnings, we our speaking about something happening within time. But if time itself had a beginning, can we reasonably say that the universe “began”, when taking into account that there was no “time” in which time could begin. The implication is a parodox which says that there was never a “time” when time did not exist, since there was never a “before time” ( “Before” being a time related word). This would seem to give us the impression that time is eternal in a very odd way; yet we can see, through the discoverys of big cosmology and certain mathematical principles, that "time is “finite” along with the universe. The universe cannot be both infinite and finite in nature.

the problem is only apparent: the definition of “eternal” is not “having no beginning in time”, but rather, “having no beginning”.

so. time had a beginning, and the universe had a beginning. which means, of course, that both time and the universe are finite.

QED.

 

[Sideline]

Hi,

I don’t lay claim to a prodigious scholastic aptitude (that was fun to type ), but I think I have an answer to this paradox that hasn’t been expressed yet, although it relates to john doran’s post. First off, let me apologise in advanced for the very imprecise, and sloppy, way that this idea will be expressed. I’ve only just been toying around with these ideas for a short time, and I haven’t fleshed them all out yet.

Imagine if you will space/time looks like this:***

♂***

(Think ray proceding from a circle, not “male”.)

In this model you have two “universes” that meet at a specific point. Everything in the circle is “before” everything in the ray, but there is no “before” or “after” in the circle. Time is relevant to the ray, but not the circle. The circle is eternal, the ray is finite (or at the very least has a begining.)

It is interesting that the model works equally well for believers and for non-believers. For believers, the point from which the ray procedes is the moment of creation. For non-believers this point is simply the begining of a mechanical universe.

Peace everyone.

 

[thechrismyster]

so i tell you that last night, my paints were on the window sill, and my cat jumped up, knocked the paints onto the floor and they spilled onto a piece of paper that was blank. when i looked at the paper, this was the random pattern that emerged.

people would look at me like i was nuts, “NO WAY” could a random drop of paint come out looking like that.

but those same intelligent minds can look at this universe, all in it, the creation and actions undertaken… and THAT is a random, chance creation.

i just can’t understand the thinking that would refuse to believe the paper i show isn’t possibly random paint splatters but all of creation is completely random by chance.

 

[freesoulhope]

http://www.cornellcollege.edu/classical_studies/images/clsimages/Paul-Anthology-page.jpg

so i tell you that last night, my paints were on the window sill, and my cat jumped up, knocked the paints onto the floor and they spilled onto a piece of paper that was blank. when i looked at the paper, this was the random pattern that emerged.
.

It is not the fact that it occurred randomly that is the problem; it is the fact that something ***meaningful ***came from it, but because it came to be through random variations, the atheist therefore assumes that this is therefore evidence that the picture or otherwise is devoid of any meaning.
But this is actually contradictory to the scientific evidence and Logic.

For example; one could say that it was a fortunate random series of advents that self consciousness in humans came to be; and that’s fine, but one cannot say that “self consciousness”, in itself, is an “accident”, since the “possibility” of self consciousness would of had to of existed in “eternity” before the universe began; otherwise there could be no possibility of it. Since the universe began and derives its existence from eternity, the universe itself is not wholly responsible for what it produces in time and space; it can only produce what eternity has made possible, since the “possibility” would have to first exist in eternity. Whether a sequence of events is achieved through random variations or not, is irrelevant in respect to what it “produces”, and what it produces is meaningful according to the nature of eternity.

To put it another way: ***Evolution, Random Variation ***and Mutation, are the ***governing mechanisms ***by which organic things come to be; but what the mechanism in question “produces”, is wholly determined by “eternity”, and therefore cannot be said to be a creation of the finite universe.

Conclusion: Since eternity is a governing and necessary factor in the production of the universe; the universe itself is not ultimate reality and does not determine what it creates. Eternity is a whole, without time and successive material moving parts; and therefore the universe cannot be an accident of “evolution”.

An Eternal-Mind working towards a purpose is the only reasonable conclusion that has been put forward by thinking minds to this date.

Note: I have come to this conclusion by assuming that Evolution is actually true. Therefore the fact of evolution helps the ***rational mind in the case for proving Gods existence; not the other-way round. This may be one good reason ***for God to choose evolution as a creative mechanism; simply for the sake of the rational minds exploritive behavior.

Peace.