"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ah, no you have it wrong.

I'm not remotely afraid of him, the institute or what they have to say.

I do however have a limited amount of time with which to do everything I want to do
and listening to a discovery institute goon talk nonsense I have already heard a hundred
times before is not something I consider to be an enjoyable or worthwhile use of my
time.

Okay, I haven't watched it either. Like penguin, I might watch it later. But right now it is time for my nap.

The Instructor

Originally posted by Penguin
So do you have anything to say about my comment:

====
There are a number of problems with this but the main one as I see it is that outside of time, there is no such thing as 'experience' since experience is a process dependent on the passing of time. Without experience, your concept of any kind of 'soul' vanishes. Likewise a 'relationship' is also im ...[text shortened]... th it or otherwise interact without creating new timelines.
====

--- Penguin.

Anything and everything beyond a time continuum is supernatural and spiritually perceived. The unregenerate soul dwells in uncertainty and chaos, unable to cope with adversity or prosperity. Time is finite. Before and after time: eternity. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Anything and everything beyond a time continuum is supernatural and spiritually perceived. The unregenerate soul dwells in uncertainty and chaos, unable to cope with adversity or prosperity. Time is finite. Before and after time: eternity. -Bob

We do not know that time is finite, only that it had a beginning. At the moment it is looking like it might not have an end. Even if it does, you are essentially speculating about what is north of the North Pole. Meaningless.

The term 'eternity' is the opposite of what you mean. Eternity is endless time (in which you can have an infinite number of relationships). You are talking about an absence of time (in which you can have none at all)

Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
We do not know that time is finite, only that it had a beginning. At the moment it is looking like it might not have an end. Even if it does, you are essentially speculating about what is north of the North Pole. Meaningless.

The term 'eternity' is the opposite of what you mean. Eternity is endless time (in which you can have an infinite number of relati ...[text shortened]... ips). You are talking about an absence of time (in which you can have none at all)

Penguin.

I respect your capacity to speculate, conceptualize and reason; as well as your opinions.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
I respect your capacity to speculate, conceptualize and reason; as well as your opinions.

Thank you.

Do you then think that my points are worthy of further contemplation? Can you accept that I have thought through my position and have justified it? Have I made you consider the validity of your own position? Have you accepted that although you disagree with me, you have been unable to justify your reasons?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Thank you.

Do you then think that my points are worthy of further contemplation? Can you accept that I have thought through my position and have justified it? Have I made you consider the validity of your own position? Have you accepted that although you disagree with me, you have been unable to justify your reasons?

--- Penguin.

"We do not know that time is finite... " (Penguin)

We know from ongoing actuarial studies documentation that individual human life on earth is predictably brief and, therefore, finite; and that human life on earth takes place within the context of time. Do we conclude time is eternal?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Anything and everything beyond a time continuum is supernatural and spiritually perceived. The unregenerate soul dwells in uncertainty and chaos, unable to cope with adversity or prosperity. Time is finite. Before and after time: eternity. -Bob

"Before and after time" doesn't compute.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"We do not know that time is finite... " (Penguin)

We know from ongoing actuarial studies documentation that individual human life on earth is predictably brief and, therefore, finite; and that human life on earth takes place within the context of time. Do we conclude time is eternal?

It may depend on what we mean by the word eternal.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eternal(s) or The Eternal may refer to:
Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or a timeless state
Immortality or eternal life

Eternal also means without beginning or ending.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It may depend on what we mean by the word eternal.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eternal(s) or The Eternal may refer to:
Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or a timeless state
Immortality or eternal life

Eternal also means without beginning or ending.

The Instructor

RJ, a relevant and constructive contribution! Are you feeling ok?

Eternal(s) or The Eternal may refer to:
Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or a timeless state
Immortality or eternal life

The bit I put in bold above is particularly interesting. It means that GB is actually using a recognised meaning of 'Eternity'.

Unfortunately, I don't think it helps his case since things like 'experience' and 'relationships' are processes that occur through time and without time they are not possible.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
RJ, a relevant and constructive contribution! Are you feeling ok?

Eternal(s) or The Eternal may refer to:
Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or [b]a timeless state
Immortality or eternal life

The bit I put in bold above is particularly interesting. It means that GB is actually using a recognised meaning of 'Eternity'.

Unfortunately ...[text shortened]... es that occur through time and without time they are not possible.

--- Penguin.[/b]

"Unfortunately, I don't think... " (Penguin)

Unfortunately, none of us can without frame of reference. (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Unfortunately, I don't think... " (Penguin)

Unfortunately, none of us can without frame of reference. (gb)

And the most reliable frame of reference we have is that provided by the scientific method and the null hypothesis.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
RJ, a relevant and constructive contribution! Are you feeling ok?

Eternal(s) or The Eternal may refer to:
Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or [b]a timeless state
Immortality or eternal life

The bit I put in bold above is particularly interesting. It means that GB is actually using a recognised meaning of 'Eternity'.

Unfortunately ...[text shortened]... es that occur through time and without time they are not possible.

--- Penguin.[/b]

That also depends on your definition of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. Time has long been a major subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.

One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe — a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.

The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

Do you have either of these views of time or did you make up one of your own?

The Instructor

Originally posted by LemonJello
"Before and after time" doesn't compute.

Before and after the first human birth computes.
Before and after the physical death of any subsequent human being computes.
Why not before and after the final physical death of a human being?
Should we assume time which had a beginning has no termini?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Before and after the first human birth computes.
Before and after the physical death of any subsequent human being computes.
Why not before and after the final physical death of a human being?
Should we assume time which had a beginning has no termini?

Sorry, I have no clue what you're talking about. What does any of this have to do with whether or not "before and after time" computes? As far as I can tell, the phrase doesn't compute simply in virtue of the fact that words like 'before' and 'after' imply temporal relations.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Before and after the first human birth computes.
Before and after the physical death of any subsequent human being computes.
Why not before and after the final physical death of a human being?
Should we assume time which had a beginning has no termini?

Time is a dimension, not a subset of a dimension. If time is finite, then it may have termini, but there cannot be any 'beyond' that termini. To do so would violate the definition of a dimension.
To talk of 'before time' is incoherent.