The Debate of God.

[Heathen Hammer]

How do you determine that Time has passed? Thinking requires time, and a thinker, but consciousness does not.

Irrelevant to your assertion that Time does not exist. 'Thinking requires Time' is the important realization.

It is with your consciousness that one sees, without thought, that Time, existence, and the self, are illusory. You are seeing it from the point of view of the changeless, infinite, indivisible background that is the Absolute. But if you are still attached to the concept of the self, that you are an individual ego called "I", then you think that life is real; that there is change. Now you are using ordinary thinking, and you are living by the clock, so Time is real for you, just as the rope you imagined was a snake for a brief moment, was real.

No, you're wrong about Time.
You spout a lot of deepities. as I said; empty statements made of flowery prose.
Time is real for both of us. You are having thoughts; that proves Time. To resist obvious reality is probably seen as wrong even in your religion.
I mean, for you to think about Time, it has to be passing; you are changing states. It just seems bizarre to deny something this self-apparent.

 

[SaintAugustine]

God IS.

 

[PolyHedral]

God IS.

Yes, but how?

 

[godnotgod]

Irrelevant to your assertion that Time does not exist. 'Thinking requires Time' is the important realization.

Can you answer my question: how do you determine that thinking requires time?

 

[godnotgod]

The whole, "Time is an illusion" nonsense springs to mind.

The concept of Time as a real thing is what is being advanced. To say that it does not exist is not a concept, but a negation of concept.

Is that all you've got?

You need to show why these "conceptual overlays" are a false representation of reality then.

Because they fail to tell us what the nature of Reality is. Why would you want to overlay an idea of reality over reality, when you've got reality right under your nose?

Then you are lucky, because don't have ANY facts, data or knowledge. You are speaking nonsense.

To think that facts, data, and knowledge are going to provide real insights into the nature of the universe is nonsense. The discovery of Quantum Mechanics is a case in point: scientists are more perplexed than ever. It's what happens when you get the facts before the understanding.

You see, I have taken your arguments on board. I do indeed have proof, but while I wait for tomorrow, I find that everytime I think it gets to tomorrow it suddenly becomes today. TOMORROW is in the future, and as such we can never reach it. A shame too, because it was a really nice proof.

But rest assured, if we ever get to a point in time where it is not NOW but is indeed TOMORROW, I will post it.

Sure you will.....sure you will.....

I knew you were full of hot air.

I don't provide 'evidence' because my approach is not dependent upon it; it is dependent upon direct experience. But you, who harps incessantly on 'evidence' as the means by which 'truth' can be reached, have none.

So what exactly do you intend to get out of all that baggage of facts, data, and knowledge you lug around with you? Are you thinking of teaching the universe a thing or two with it?:biglaugh::spam:

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, but how?

Tas atvam asi

 

[Tiberius]

The concept of Time as a real thing is what is being advanced. To say that it does not exist is not a concept, but a negation of concept.

Is that all you've got?

It's not a negation of anything. YOU are the one saying that time is not.

Because they fail to tell us what the nature of Reality is. Why would you want to overlay an idea of reality over reality, when you've got reality right under your nose?

Your position tells us absolutely nothing and teaches us to be satisfied with ignorance.

To think that facts, data, and knowledge are going to provide real insights into the nature of the universe is nonsense. The discovery of Quantum Mechanics is a case in point: scientists are more perplexed than ever. It's what happens when you get the facts before the understanding.

By goodness, this gets worse. Facts, data and knowledge are useless now? Are you brainwashed or something?

Sure you will.....sure you will.....

I knew you were full of hot air.

I don't provide 'evidence' because my approach is not dependent upon it; it is dependent upon direct experience. But you, who harps incessantly on 'evidence' as the means by which 'truth' can be reached, have none.

So what exactly do you intend to get out of all that baggage of facts, data, and knowledge you lug around with you? Are you thinking of teaching the universe a thing or two with it?:biglaugh::spam:

Lemme get this straight. I embrace your claims, and now you dismiss me? Just to make it clear, You dismiss me when I act according to your claims?

My goodness. You don't believe me when I disagree with you, you don't believe me when I DO agree with you...

 

[godnotgod]

It's not a negation of anything. YOU are the one saying that time is not.

Funny, you are the one who touts logic, reason, and analysis, and yet, you don't seem to understand simple logic:

TO SAY THAT TIME IS NOT IS TO NEGATE ITS EXISTENCE. NEGATION IS NOT A CONCEPT.

Now, is there anything else you wish to add to your non-list of 'concepts' I am advancing?

Your position tells us absolutely nothing and teaches us to be satisfied with ignorance.

So how have your facts, data, and knowledge enlightened you about the nature of things? Surely you have great knowledge, but little, if no, understanding. Empty calories that do not satisfy.

By goodness, this gets worse. Facts, data and knowledge are useless now? Are you brainwashed or something?

Your thinking is Black and White. It is either one extreme or the other with you. Did I say facts, data, and knowledge were useless? No, I did not. In fact, if you have been actually reading my posts, you would have noticed that I give full credit to science for revealing such knowledge, but it is still on the wrong track if it thinks it is going to gain an understanding of the universe by such means.

Lemme get this straight. I embrace your claims, and now you dismiss me? Just to make it clear, You dismiss me when I act according to your claims?

My goodness. You don't believe me when I disagree with you, you don't believe me when I DO agree with you...

Now you're being just plain silly, chasing your own tail. How can you 'embrace my claims' when you have repeatedly called them 'nonsense'? Come now. Isn't your ploy rather obvious?

 

[Tiberius]

Funny, you are the one who touts logic, reason, and analysis, and yet, you don't seem to understand simple logic:

TO SAY THAT TIME IS NOT IS TO NEGATE ITS EXISTENCE. NEGATION IS NOT A CONCEPT.

Only if disbelief in time is the default position.

Now, is there anything else you wish to add to your non-list of 'concepts' I am advancing?

You are advancing ignorance.

So how have your facts, data, and knowledge enlightened you about the nature of things? Surely you have great knowledge, but little, if no, understanding. Empty calories that do not satisfy.

My facts, data and knowledge have told me things about the foundation of the universe. It is those facts that govern the operation of your computer.

Your thinking is Black and White. It is either one extreme or the other with you. Did I say facts, data, and knowledge were useless? No, I did not. In fact, if you have been actually reading my posts, you would have noticed that I give full credit to science for revealing such knowledge, but it is still on the wrong track if it thinks it is going to gain an understanding of the universe by such means.

Let's see exactly what you said...

"To think that facts, data, and knowledge are going to provide real insights into the nature of the universe is nonsense."​

Now, call me crazy, but are you saying here that anyone who thinks that knowledge will tell them about the universe is mistaken? Youa re saying that expecting knowledge, data and facts to give you information about the universe is nonsense, aren't you?

Now you're being just plain silly, chasing your own tail. How can you 'embrace my claims' when you have repeatedly called them 'nonsense'? Come now. Isn't your ploy rather obvious?

I embraced your claim that time is an illusion, and that everything we experience is in one "now"

And, since you have said that there is no future because time is illusionary, then I can never get to the "tomorrow" in order to post this proof.

Funny how you suddenly abandon your refusal to acknowledge the concept of time when it suits you. There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.

Now post some evidence to support your claims, because all I've seen from you is nonsense.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Can you answer my question: how do you determine that thinking requires time?

I already have, by stating that it is a change of state. The forming of a thought is an alteration. Whether you believe it is a semimystical occurrence in some disembodied form of consciousness which motivates your physical form or the jumping of neuron patterns in a squishy physical brain, nonetheless it is a set of 'differences' in some type of order. The allowance of those changes, even if it is a single change, requires Time to occur.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

To think that facts, data, and knowledge are going to provide real insights into the nature of the universe is nonsense.

By what yardstick are you measuring things to determine that some sort of facts and data have not been accurate? You don't seem to realize it but that is a self-defeating philosophy: how do you determine that facts and data are illusions... by looking at facts and data which are illusions?

Basically you walk through a world where nothing is real, is that your deal?

 

[godnotgod]

Only if disbelief in time is the default position.

The default position is neither belief, nor dis-belief. Time is non-existent in the default position. The concept of Time came into being through the human mind, where it is believed as true that it is real, and the mind is the ONLY place where Time exists. Since most of us are socialized into a culture where the idea of Time is conditioned into us from the get-go, we see it as something that actually exists. To negate that concept as essentially false from the point of view of the default position is not to create any new concept at all. The universe is not based on any concepts whatsoever.

You are advancing ignorance.

OK. So your original claim that I am advancing my own set of concepts is not true, as you have nothing to say here. Case closed.

My facts, data and knowledge have told me things about the foundation of the universe. It is those facts that govern the operation of your computer.

They tell you that the universe operates under certain principles, but they do not tell you about any 'foundation of the universe'. Science is still theorizing about that. The question had to do with enlightenment, not the acquisition of facts, data, and knowledge.

Let's see exactly what you said...

"To think that facts, data, and knowledge are going to provide real insights into the nature of the universe is nonsense."​

Now, call me crazy, but are you saying here that anyone who thinks that knowledge will tell them about the universe is mistaken? Youa re saying that expecting knowledge, data and facts to give you information about the universe is nonsense, aren't you?

Do you understand the difference between 'knowledge' and 'understanding'?

I embraced your claim that time is an illusion, and that everything we experience is in one "now"

And, since you have said that there is no future because time is illusionary, then I can never get to the "tomorrow" in order to post this proof.

Funny how you suddenly abandon your refusal to acknowledge the concept of time when it suits you. There's a word for that. Hypocrisy.

Now post some evidence to support your claims, because all I've seen from you is nonsense.

Heh...heh...heh....you are becoming more and more transparent here....

If you consider all that comes from me as sheer nonsense, then why have you 'embraced' my claim that Time is illusory? Come now, Tiberius. You never had any overwhelming evidence that Time is a solid reality to post in the first place. A cursory check on the web will tell you that the issue has never been resolved even among scientists.

And no, I do not believe that you have 'embraced' my claim at all. That is just so much poppycock. If you truly did, you would not be demanding 'evidence'.

 

[godnotgod]

I already have, by stating that it is a change of state. The forming of a thought is an alteration. Whether you believe it is a semimystical occurrence in some disembodied form of consciousness which motivates your physical form or the jumping of neuron patterns in a squishy physical brain, nonetheless it is a set of 'differences' in some type of order. The allowance of those changes, even if it is a single change, requires Time to occur.

Let me see if I can rephrase the question: How can you verify that any 'change' you perceive involves Time? How do you verify that Time has passed? I know that seems obvious to you, but look at the question more closely.

 

[godnotgod]

By what yardstick are you measuring things to determine that some sort of facts and data have not been accurate? You don't seem to realize it but that is a self-defeating philosophy: how do you determine that facts and data are illusions... by looking at facts and data which are illusions?

Basically you walk through a world where nothing is real, is that your deal?

I did not say that facts and data are inaccurate; I said that they do not, in and of themselves, represent the true nature of the universe.

Can you show me one 'thing' that is 'real'?

 

[PolyHedral]

The default position is neither belief, nor dis-belief. Time is non-existent in the default position.

This is technically correct logic. Unfortunately, the next step fails.

The concept of Time came into being through the human mind, where it is believed as true that it is real, and the mind is the ONLY place where Time exists.

Because this is wrong. Time dilation is readily demonstrated, either in particle physics labs, or in the GPS satellite system. (Which would become vastly inaccurate if time dilation were not accounted for) This isn't something to do with clocks or measuring apparatus or arbitrary units; all phenomona in the universe are affected exactly as Einstein predicted, and so there is no meaningful way to say that Time does not change rate.

The universe is not based on any concepts whatsoever.

Also, this is wrong, but that's really outside the scope of this discussion.

They tell you that the universe operates under certain principles, but they do not tell you about any 'foundation of the universe'.

Of course they do; that's because they are the foundation of the universe.

Do you understand the difference between 'knowledge' and 'understanding'?

There isn't really any, when you get down to the pure mathematics that show you the underpinnings of the universe.

Let me see if I can rephrase the question: How can you verify that any 'change' you perceive involves Time? How do you verify that Time has passed? I know that seems obvious to you, but look at the question more closely.

The change defines time. Time has most definitely passed because things were different than they were.

Can you show me one 'thing' that is 'real'?

Well, until I'm told otherwise, I'm going to say that electrons are real. Annoyingly, I can't show you one, since they're too small for your eye to detect. The fact that you can read this post is very strong evidence that they exist, though.

 

[Tiberius]

Godnotgod, I see you are still making big noises but not giving even little evidences. Let's change that, shall we?

 

[godnotgod]

The change defines time. Time has most definitely passed because things were different than they were.

But 'what they were' no longer exists, so you are comparing 'what is' to an echo, which gives you the illusion of Time. All events occur only in the present moment. They cannot occur in the past or the future as both are always non-existent.

Well, until I'm told otherwise, I'm going to say that electrons are real. Annoyingly, I can't show you one, since they're too small for your eye to detect. The fact that you can read this post is very strong evidence that they exist, though.

You can't show me one because Quantum Physics has shown that electrons cannot be pinned down, as they behave as both particles and waves. On top of that, we now know that atoms are mostly empty space. These facts add up to a situation where we no longer know what is 'real', and the net effect is akin to magic, and magic, as we all know, is the art of illusion.

On a larger scale, cutting edge theories about the origins of the universe now say that it came out of nothing, more magic and illusion.

But beyond this, we can say that, fundamentally, not one single thing exists, as all 'things' are completely interconnected with everything else, so 'thing' cannot be isolated and defined, except arbitrarily and conceptually. To define one single thing is to define the entire universe, and vice versa.

But if we understand that what we think of as real 'things' are only an illusion, and that the changeless, undivided, and infinite background against which they are seen and from which they are being projected is what reality actually is, then the phenomenal world that is really illusion might begin to 'make sense'. Clearly, Quantum Physics is showing us that what we thought of as 'reality' in the classic sense is no longer the case.

 

[godnotgod]

Godnotgod, I see you are still making big noises but not giving even little evidences. Let's change that, shall we?

Sure. All you need to do is to adjust your vision so that you can see into the nature of things. Then you will see that what appears to you as 'big noises' is nothing more than Ordinary Reality. But you can't see it as long as you are looking at it through the distorting glass of Time, Space, and Causation, all of which together are making those 'big noises'.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I did not say that facts and data are inaccurate; I said that they do not, in and of themselves, represent the true nature of the universe.

And why don't they? What data and facts have you ever analyzed which can show that this is true? From whence did you get this idea in the first place?

Can you show me one 'thing' that is 'real'?

I certainly can.

You are definitely real, for example, because if I were imagining you I would certainly NOT be making you to be someone who is wasting my time, asking me self-evident questions about Time

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Let me see if I can rephrase the question: How can you verify that any 'change' you perceive involves Time? How do you verify that Time has passed? I know that seems obvious to you, but look at the question more closely.

It is self-evident.

It's really very simple. Time is necessary for any change of state. I have already explained. If you are perceiving anything, Time is already passing for you.

You might as well ask me to verify how I can know if you are alive while you are thinking. if you're not alive you aren't thinking. If you are thinking, you're alive.