My proof for God. Critiques please

[Moonstruck888]

He is everywhere and in everything. We cannot begin to know God except through love. Look at how little we know about His Creation. How can we possibly expect to understand the Creator in the way that you want to understand and define Him - by such limited human means as our brain.

We know what a human skin cell looks like. We can see the nucleus and all the organelles. We know a lot about how they work. We know the genetic code. We know all of the chemicals that make up the cell. But knowing all of this, we still cannot create a single cell from raw materials. And that is just one cell out of all of the creation in our Universe. And you want your human mind to be able to understand God?

I want him to prove himself to me before I make fawning professions to him or hand over my income to his acolytes. I want him to justify his demands that I worship him.

 

[momor]

I want him to prove himself to me before I make fawning professions to him or hand over my income to his acolytes. I want him to justify his demands that I worship him.

If you could understand your place relative to God you would not make such a demand.

Instead you might honestly ask Him to help you begin to ‘see’ Him and be open to whatever form that might take. It does not have to involve professions of faith or money or worship or any other religious stereotype you might have. Just attempt to open a line of communication - A question offered like "Where are you God? If you exist why can’t I see you?

He might choose to let you become aware of Him through math or science, or nature, or another person, or a still small voice in your mind, an answered prayer, or whatever. It could be subtle as a whisper or it could be a slap upside the head or anywhere in between. Whatever it is it will be the right response for you. The possibilities are many but you are the one that has to open up enough to the possibility that He exists to be able to ‘hear’ or ‘see’ or ‘feel’ His response.

As a scientist are you open to new unproven theories? Do you look at them with an open mind, willing to be convinced of the possibility the theory is correct, or willing to keep an open mind waiting for more evidence? God asks nothing more of you where He is concerned to be able to open a ‘conversation’ with Him.

 

[Moonstruck888]

If you could understand your place relative to God you would not make such a demand.

Instead you might honestly ask Him to help you begin to ‘see’ Him and be open to whatever form that might take. It does not have to involve professions of faith or money or worship or any other religious stereotype you might have. Just attempt to open a line of communication - A question offered like "Where are you God? If you exist why can’t I see you?

He might choose to let you become aware of Him through math or science, or nature, or another person, or a still small voice in your mind, an answered prayer, or whatever. It could be subtle as a whisper or it could be a slap upside the head or anywhere in between. Whatever it is it will be the right response for you. The possibilities are many but you are the one that has to open up enough to the possibility that He exists to be able to ‘hear’ or ‘see’ or ‘feel’ His response.

As a scientist are you open to new unproven theories? Do you look at them with an open mind, willing to be convinced of the possibility the theory is correct, or willing to keep an open mind waiting for more evidence? God asks nothing more of you where He is concerned to be able to open a ‘conversation’ with Him.

I suspend judgement on unproven theories. I am very skeptical of any ideas not backed by evidence.

The trouble with feelings is that they originate within the human mind. Everyone feels slightly different than everyone else, that is why feelings and intuition do not qualify as evidence. You feel God, I don’t. There is no evidence either way to know which of us is right and which is wrong.

In a situation like this, I am compelled to be skeptical. No one I’ve ever known can make one quantifiable observation about God. To me, that in itself would be indicative of the fact that there is nothing to observe.

My place next to God is that I know I exist and I am capable and inclined to demonstrate that I exist. I do not know that he exists.

 

[momor]

I suspend judgement on unproven theories. I am very skeptical of any ideas not backed by evidence.

The trouble with feelings is that they originate within the human mind. Everyone feels slightly different than everyone else, that is why feelings and intuition do not qualify as evidence. You feel God, I don’t. There is no evidence either way to know which of us is right and which is wrong.

In a situation like this, I am compelled to be skeptical. No one I’ve ever known can make one quantifiable observation about God. To me, that in itself would be indicative of the fact that there is nothing to observe.

My place next to God is that I know I exist and I am capable and inclined to demonstrate that I exist. I do not know that he exists.

Re: new unproven theories. You suspend judgment and you are skeptical. That’s fine. But on some level you remain open to the idea -.you are willing to become convinced, you are not hostile to it, you don’t dismiss it out of hand if there is no evidence against it - Yes?

You need nothing more than that same attitude to be open to God, including a willingness not to place any limitations on how or when God might give you the evidence you need or what that evidence might consist of.

 

[rvilbig]

So where is he?

Here’s a proof of God from quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanical state functions, the coefficients are complex numbers and thus may include the imaginary number i= √-1. Since conceiving the imaginary number, i, required a human mind to abstract it from its real concepts, it thus follows that the laws of nature require a mind to correctly resolve the quantum mechanical interference patterns.

This mind that underlies the workings of the natural world is understood by all men to be God.

As an example of imaginary coefficients, consider this example from Roger Penrose’s Shadows of the Mind (pages 260-262). See image. Photons approach a mirror at a 45º angle, along a path A, which may transmit at 0º along path B or reflect at 90º along path C. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, the reflected light undergos a net phase shift by a quarter wavelength and is multiplied by the factor i= √-1. Along path B and C, the light encounters new mirrors at 45º angles which direct the light from path B to path D and path C to path E to a final mirror completing the square at a 45º angle. The light may thereafter travel along paths G or F. Now here are the mathematics of the state transitions:

|A> → |B> + i |C>
|B> + i |C> → i|D> + i(i |E>) = i|D> - |E>
i|D> - |E> → i(|G> + i |F>) - (|F> + i |G>) =-2|F>

And thus, because of the imaginary coefficients, path G is not observed in the final outcome.

So we see that quantum interference patterns require imaginary coefficients and hence a mind to solve its equations. Since the mathematics of quantum mechanics cannot be represented with real concepts, we see that nature operates using the imaginative faculty of some Being, Whom all men understand to be God.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Soulewolf]

Before I show my proof for God, I just want to say that I’m building on the Kalam argument. This isn’t an original argument, just my expansion on a pre-existent one.

1. The past is finite
2. There was a point when the universe did not exist
3. Something had to create the universe
4. That something is God

Therefore,
5) God exists.

---

Time does not exist. It is an illusion created by 5 sensory data, that is… it is the brains way of interpreting the universe around us.

Imagine a loaf of bread that is sliced at both ends at slightly different angles. As you reach the center of the loaf the center slice will look like a V. The longer the loaf is, the more pronounced this V shape will be.

Spacetime works the same way. Imagine two observers equidistant from a light bulb placed in a moving train, and a third observer watching from a platform outside the train. When the light bulb flashes, the two observers will see the light particles hitting both of them at the same time. However the third observer on the platform will plainly see the light particles hitting one observer before the other. The closer the train moves to the speed of light, the more observable this phenomenon is. Which observer is correct? They all are.

Now imagine you, sitting at your computer reading the words on this web page and an alien life form reading words on another web page a couple billion light years away. The alien gets up and walks away from your location. As per the loaf of bread, his angled slice of space time will shift in such a way that the earth will be a couple hundred years younger than if that alien life form was stationary.

This proves that time is relative depending on the observer. Relativity. This means that your argument assumes objective time and an observer. Since there has to be a universe to observe and for the observer to exist in, asking “when the universe was created” is like asking the marital status of the number 5.

Ryan, assuming you are talking about the observer colapsing the wave function (as theory is my strong point, not the mathematics) your proof can not be correct.

if it was indeed god colapsing the wave function, the inclusion of Gods omnipresence as a variable would lead us to conclude that the wave function would not exist, simply because god would be observing the “were is” data of the particle continually, which would collapse the probability wave into a single point. Because wave functions do exist, this can not be the case.

 

[JohnDamian]

Now imagine you, sitting at your computer reading the words on this web page and an alien life form reading words on another web page a couple billion light years away. The alien gets up and walks away from your location. As per the loaf of bread, his angled slice of space time will shift in such a way that the earth will be a couple hundred years younger than if that alien life form was stationary.

Poppycock.

An objects existence is not causally determined by it’s perception, even if the act of perception itself occasions as bias. This in no way is causally deteminate of the objective reality of the real (not percieved) object.

This proves that time is relative depending on the observer. Relativity.

The perception of time as relative in no way occasions the conclusion that the reality of time is relative. This would be an act of equivocation and a fallacy of a most misleading variety.

Since there has to be a universe to observe and for the observer to exist in, asking “when the universe was created” is like asking the marital status of the number 5.

The existance of quiddiative materials or forms is irrespective of observance and is not causally determinate.

 

[Soulewolf]

Poppycock.

An objects existence is not causally determined by it’s perception, even if the act of perception itself occasions as bias. This in no way is causally deteminate of the objective reality of the real (not percieved) object.

From “The Fabric of the Cosmos” by Brian Greene

"To make this concrete, Imagine that Chewie is on a planet in a galay far, far away – 10 billion light- years away from earth, idly sitting in his living room. Imagine further that you (sitting still, reading these words) and chewie are not moving relative to each other. (for simplicity, ignore the motion of the planets, the expansion of the universe, gravitational effects, and so on). Since you are at rest relative to each other, you and chewie agree fully on issues of space and time: you would slice up spacetime in an identical manner, and so your “now-lists” would coincide exactally. After a little while, chewie stands up and goes for a walk. A gentle, relaxing amble in a direction that turns out to be directly away from you. This change in Chewie’s state of motion means that his conception of now, his slicing up of space time, will rotate slightly. This tiny angular change has no noticable effect in chewie’s vicinity: the difference between his new now and that of anyone still sittting in his living room is miniscule. But over the enormous distance of 10 billion light years, this tiny shift in chewie’s notion of now is amplified. His now and your now, which were one and the same while he was sitting still, jump apart because of his modest motion…

“…If chewie walks away from you at about 10 miles per hour the events on earth that belong on his new now list are events that happened 150 years ago, according to you.”

-“The Fabric of the Cosmos” pgs. 134-136
Brian Greene

The perception of time as relative in no way occasions the conclusion that the reality of time is relative. This would be an act of equivocation and a fallacy of a most misleading variety.

you are right. it is only evidence. Futher evidence is that science has yet to show any evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that time exists outside of subjective observation.

The existance of quiddiative materials or forms is irrespective of observance and is not causally determinate.

The way we observe it is. or do you not believe that there is more out there than what sensory data shows us?

 

[JohnDamian]

“…If chewie walks away from you at about 10 miles per hour the events on earth that belong on his new now list are events that happened 150 years ago, according to you.”

-“The Fabric of the Cosmos”
Brian Greene

I am sorry, but this appears to be neither science nor philosophy. Yes, it appears that it occurs 150 years in discrepancy, but it did not occur 150 years in discrepancy. In a similar light to the fact that objects percieved through refractive lenses are not altered, objets percieved in a different or disordered fashion remain sensible objects, even if their perceptions are disordered or false.

you are right. it is only evidence. Futher evidence is that science has yet to show any evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that time exists outside of subjective observation.

It is evidence for nothing. It is merely the disordered perception of an objective event being proposed as fact, when in truth it is nought but an incorrect view.

The way we observe it is. or do you not believe that there is more out there than what sensory data shows us?

There is more than sensory data. Much more. But in the same way that contempaltion is posterior to existence in the contemplator; the priority of an object places it’s perception similarily posterior. In that, an object is prior to it’s conception, which is causally irrelevant, despite being practicably relevant.

 

[Soulewolf]

I am sorry, but this appears to be neither science nor philosophy. Yes, it appears that it occurs 150 years in discrepancy, but it did not occur 150 years in discrepancy. In a similar light to the fact that objects percieved through refractive lenses are not altered, objets percieved in a different or disordered fashion remain sensible objects, even if their perceptions are disordered or false.

This is the basics of Einstinian Relativity. Generally held to be science >_>

You are right. you would exist now he would exist then. there are two seperate times happening objectively. much like the train example i used above. Which is correct? they both are of course.

It is evidence for nothing. It is merely the disordered perception of an objective event being proposed as fact, when in truth it is nought but an incorrect view.

then please explain your own personal theories and provide evidence supporting objective time other than subjective observation data.

There is more than sensory data. Much more.

Knowing this, how can you trust sensory data to be the general basis of reality? Much like your refractor example, i would say that it is the five senses that are the refractor and the data being observed is a skewed version of the objective object.

But in the same way that contempaltion is posterior to existence in the contemplator; the priority of an object places it’s perception similarily posterior. In that, an object is prior to it’s conception, which is causally irrelevant, despite being practicably relevant.

i wouldent be so sure about that. on a quantum level it has been proven that observation itself will shift the nature of a particle.

 

[wheels10]

I want him to prove himself to me before I make fawning professions to him or hand over my income to his acolytes. ** I want him to justify his demands that I worship him**.

God does not demand that we worship Him. Love and demands do not mix at all. God Loves us and His Love is freely given to us. It is His Love that is keeping us alive. He keeps our very hearts beating! When I think of everything that God has given us in this world, I can’t help but be grateful and Love Him. Thank you God for everything, especially the Love that you show us through our Perfect Loving Mother :heart:Mary:heart: and your Perfect Loving Son :heart:Jesus:heart:!

Do you believe in good and evil?

 

[bonzerdad]

@ Coolduude who says,

Well really, how else could the past have formed? Ideas?

I believe the past to have been formed by successive addition because that’s really how I see it:

An event was once in the future (say, the first 4th of July in 1776).On July 4th, 1776, that day was in the present. Ever since then it has been in the past. So, as you can see, the event was once in the future (July 3rd, 1776), then the present (July 4th, 1776), and then the past (July 5th, 1776 to the present).

As I demonstrated, the past has been formed by successive addition

To which I reply:

I can think of at least two ways to address this issue. But first I should point out that you have not demonstrated that the past has been created by successive addition, at least not in the logical sense of demonstration. I think you’ve disguised an assertion as an argument accompanied by a description of your understanding of the assertion. For the sake of this discussion I’ll grant you that “An actually infinite number of things cannot be created by successive addition.” It may be true. But the second sentence, “The past has been created by successive addition” is simply asserted, not argued at all. To say, “How else could the past have formed?” as you well know is not an argument. But, in a sense you did not intend, your next question: “Ideas?” is its own answer.

Yes. Ideas.

I’m led back to the concept of category error. For my money it’s the greatest contribution to traditional logic made by modern philosophy, beating out the development of symbolic logic. It adds new fallacies in the list to avoid. If you want to offer your argument as a corollary to Thomas’s arguments for the existence of God, then there are two primary pitfalls to avoid:

1. Category error, which I will try to describe in the style of Thomas’s format: Objection I: it seems that the past does not and never has existed in the sense you are using. Only the present exists for human beings in any real sense. To say that the past exists in a way that has to conform to principles of successive addition is to prevaricate between senses of the word exist. And to do so is to commit a logical fallacy. If what you are saying is true, then it should be possible to subtract from the past. But by definition one cannot change the past. If it happened it happened. If anything can be said to be a continuum, indivisible, then the past is certainly a continuum. The present exists as an actuality. The past does not exist in the same sense.
   
   (The same sort of argument applies to the future. And welcome to the wonderful para-world of meta-physics.) This kind of argument, drawn out by the great 19th century philosophers from Kant on, turned Zeno’s paradoxes into the philosophical equivalent of children’s games. No philosopher today can afford NOT to confront an objection like this.

part 2 to come

 

[bonzerdad]

@ Cooldude part 2

1. The other pitfall, primarily for Christians, is to assume the finitude of time. Thomas deduced its finitude because he felt that he had satisfactorily proved the fact of God’s existence earlier in the Summa , and therefore, because it was logically prior in that book, had anyone objected that “you can’t just assume the existence of God,” he would properly have answered, “but I haven’t assumed it, I have proven it. Now let’s turn back to the beginning of my Part One, just after the prefatory section and we will return to my discussion of the existence of God. When you understand that properly, we can begin again to discuss time. I never had any intention of proving time’s finitude without reference to a previously proven Creator of time.” And by the way, if he were philosophizing today the immediate presence of God, he would dealing with category error attacks on all five of his proofs for god’s existence, including the first cause uncaused argument. It would have been very nice to have his fully developed thoughts on the nature of logic itself.

Today, just as in Thomas’s era, if you’re going to start with time as finite you will have a task as difficult as Thomas had proving God’s existence. Nothing like his argument can be used because it assumes what you are trying to prove: The existence of God. Pardon me if I continually harp on this, but you have to understand that the idea of time as infinite-- forward back and sideways – (though I’ve never heard anyone argue for time as a sideways motion.) –is on the philosophical poker table as a real possibility.

This all leads me to my promised “other way.”

last part to come

 

[bonzerdad]

@Coolduude conclusion
This all leads me to my promised “other way.”

Picking up on the space-time continuum issue of a few days ago, it seems that while the space-time continuum concept cannot work as evidence for your argument, it can be used for mine, at least as an analogy. If time itself were to be considered as a continuum, and therefore indivisible, then the past would depend on the vantage point of the observer. Move the observation point and voila! there would be a different past, longer from his point of view, but not by successive addition, because the observer could move the other way and shorten the past.

Nonsense you say. I tend to agree with that judgment. But that is pretty much what the popular pseudoscientific idea is. All you have to do is read a lot of the stuff on this blog. Beware of anyone who talks of “the space-time continuum” because he thinks of it as a thing rather than one of several space-time continua models for looking at the universe from different observation points. I get the feeling that a lot of people who drop in here don’t even read good science fiction, much less something as reputable as Scientific American.

All this doesn’t mean that modern scientific and mathematics are wrong. It just means that you don’t need to deal with scientific theories to deal with this category error. I think it is perfectly sensible to say that to consider the past as a “thing” meaningfully separable from the context of time in general is to reify it invalidly. The past is only the past from the observation point of the observer’s present. Ditto the future. What used to be the present doesn’t exist anymore. The actuality of the past doesn’t exist anymore. If you can’t subtract from it, or alter it, you can’t add to it in the same sense of creation, any more than you can add more to the present. And that fact alone should probably be convincing. If time were an “addable by successive addition thing” why could you not add to “nowness,” to the “present” without reference to the future? If time is a concept rather than a thing among other “things” then the answer is simple: ”the present is the observer’s reference point.” If it is a thing, in the same sense as any other created thing, and not “just” an idea, you will have to be able to explain why the present, the “now” between past and future, is simply not subject to the laws of successive addition. “Now” cannot be more “now” or less “now,” it is simply “now.”

Another query. If time is finite, and subject to the laws of successive addition, then the past must be getting larger while the future shrinks with each passing moment; doesn’t that fact mean that since “actually created things” are subject to the laws of successive addition, and the “now” of time is not subject to the laws of successive addition, does all that not mean that the present itself, the “now,” is not an actually created thing, and somehow un-actual compared to the past or future. This arrant nonsense is not what you intend, of course. But it is hidden there in the way you’ve phrased this premise and it’s waiting to bite you.

What is not nonsense is the idea that time does not exist in the same way that a carrot growing in a garden exists. That it can be looked at and described mathematically as a continuum from different points of view without reference to addition is a fact almost by definition today. It can be considered infinite by itself in mathematics. Your argument needs to confront both those ways of thinking about time and your premise needs to show the modern concept of time to be wrongheaded. In theory I suppose that it’s possible to do so. But to do it you will have to think hard about your own assumptions and question them as hard or harder than your opponents will. That’s one of the reasons why philosophy is not for sissies. Shoot from the hip on the blogs and you wind up with sophistry, not philosophy. End of rant.

    Myself, I am lazy I suppose and quantum mechanics and string theory hurt my head.  I love Thomas Aquinas in part because he is a very practical thinker.  And easy to deal with as far as Science goes.  St Augustine somewhere says in effect that when we look into the water from a boat a perfectly straight oar looks bent not because it is bent, and not because our eyes lie to us. The fact is, he says, that because the oar is in water it is supposed to look bent.  He had noticed what a modern would call refraction of light in water and drew a sound conclusion.  Not that our eyes lie to us, but that our understanding of what happens in optics is limited.

Thomas, I think, would be happy to concede to math and physics their proper provinces today, so long as they are logical and don’t overdraw conclusions and run beyond the realm of the measurable. It would be perfectly acceptable to him to think of time as a human concept internal to man and therefore created, not directly by god but as part of the hard-wiring of man’s understanding of his own existence. In this context as I said a couple weeks ago God would not be the direct but the proximate cause of time in Thomist terms. Revealed Truth would still indicate that time will ultimately end with end of man, and that it began during creation, but it would still be a fact that physics and math and whatever other science is properly interested in the issue can still treat it however they wish because they speak only of the measureable universe and the way things appear to their eyes and instruments. One notes that sometimes in physics time can be treated as finite, sometimes as infinite. And Newtonian physics was not superseded or replaced by Einstein but still exists usefully. It is still the truth of everyday engineering, for instance. Properly so, both Thomas and St Augustine (who so often differ) would say.

 

[momor]

Let me state up front that I am not a mathematician or physicist. But I sometimes think that can be an advantage as it can help cut through some of the musings on theories that fly over the top of my head. Out of the mouth of babes, so to speak.

I disagree that time cannot be compared to, (or exist as) a carrot growing in the garden. The carrot has a past a present and a future. It is built on the successive addition of water and nutrients and energy which tranform themselves into cell substance and cells are created in succession. This is the same way that the past is built, on the successive addition of all of the events occurring in real time which immediately pass into the past.

The past is divisible by segments of time, however one wishes to measure that, therefore I agree that time is built by successive addition. The fact that living things and inanimate things began in the past and exist in the present means the past is a tangible thing built up by successive moments of now and the events that happen in each moment of now. The past doesn’t disappear outside of the now.

My musings with no scientific basis:
If we could develop time travel and go back in time our view from the past would look different to us than the person who only exists there in the now. We would see his past plus his future, which is part of our past up to the point of our departure from our former present. Since we can see only the past and the present, for all we know God is creating each successive moment of time as it happens or perhaps he has already created infinity and we are simply traveling through time toward it. Perhaps heavenly time is a perpetual now because time is circular and heaven exists at the speed of infinity.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Re: new unproven theories. You suspend judgment and you are skeptical. That’s fine. But on some level you remain open to the idea -.you are willing to become convinced, you are not hostile to it, you don’t dismiss it out of hand if there is no evidence against it - Yes?

You need nothing more than that same attitude to be open to God, including a willingness not to place any limitations on how or when God might give you the evidence you need or what that evidence might consist of.

If an idea has no evidence to support it, I dismiss it as poppycock until the person who wants to convinve me of it’s validity presents some evidence.

In a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. In scientific peer review, you are guilty until proven innocent.

What all this stuff you’re saying boils down to is that if I want to see God, I must be open to refrain from thinking critically. I am not open to that. I never have been open to that. I never will be open to that.

 

[momor]

If an idea has no evidence to support it, I dismiss it as poppycock until the person who wants to convinve me of it’s validity presents some evidence.

In a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. In scientific peer review, you are guilty until proven innocent.

What all this stuff you’re saying boils down to is that if I want to see God, I must be open to refrain from thinking critically. I am not open to that. I never have been open to that. I never will be open to that.

And I find it exceedingly sad that you have chosen to lock yourself inside your little box.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Here’s a proof of God from quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanical state functions, the coefficients are complex numbers and thus may include the imaginary number i= √-1. Since conceiving the imaginary number, i, required a human mind to abstract it from its real concepts, it thus follows that the laws of nature require a mind to correctly resolve the quantum mechanical interference patterns.

This mind that underlies the workings of the natural world is understood by all men to be God.

As an example of imaginary coefficients, consider this example from Roger Penrose’s Shadows of the Mind (pages 260-262). See image. Photons approach a mirror at a 45º angle, along a path A, which may transmit at 0º along path B or reflect at 90º along path C. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, the reflected light undergos a net phase shift by a quarter wavelength and is multiplied by the factor i= √-1. Along path B and C, the light encounters new mirrors at 45º angles which direct the light from path B to path D and path C to path E to a final mirror completing the square at a 45º angle. The light may thereafter travel along paths G or F. Now here are the mathematics of the state transitions:

|A> → |B> + i |C>
|B> + i |C> → i|D> + i(i |E>) = i|D> - |E>
i|D> - |E> → i(|G> + i |F>) - (|F> + i |G>) =-2|F>

And thus, because of the imaginary coefficients, path G is not observed in the final outcome.

So we see that quantum interference patterns require imaginary coefficients and hence a mind to solve its equations. Since the mathematics of quantum mechanics cannot be represented with real concepts, we see that nature operates using the imaginative faculty of some Being, Whom all men understand to be God.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Or it could be because our understanding of the Quantum world is hopelessly incomplete and merely an interpretation of what some people think the mathematics used in Quantum Theory might mean.

It’s hardly hard evidence for God.

 

[Moonstruck888]

He keeps our very hearts beating!

No one in acquaintance with the facts established by Harvey on the circulation on the blood could be in any doubt that the human heart can operate autonomously without any influence external to the human body.

Do you believe in good and evil?

I’m sorry, I don’t fully understand the question. Can you be more specific?

 

[Soulewolf]

To assume that the past was built on the addition of events is assuming quite a bit.

The carrot definitely has an observable past present and future, but objectively, according to relativity, after movement away from earth a couple billion light years away that carrot has already been harvested and eaten, while here on earth its just being put in the ground. This is proof that we are not observing true objective time if such a thing truly exists (i dont believe so).

Its all based on where in the universe you are and how fast you are moving towards or away from an object.

Outside of time you would see everything happening at once. there would be no time in which to create the illusion of moving forward or backward or any which way. There wouldent be any movement at all. The carrot would exist in all possible stages of its life at once. from the begining of the universe to all of its ancestors to the harvesting of the one specific seed to planting it etc.

in some places in the universe, the segments of the “past” which you are trying to measure or add havent even happened yet. and in other places in the universe i have already passed on to the next life.